Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37927344›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023

Understanding Patient Preferences Regarding the Important Determinants of Breast Cancer Treatment: A Narrative Scoping Review.

Hui Yee Yeo, Ai Ch'i Liew, Suz Jack Chan, Mudassir Anwar, Catherine Hye-Won Han, Carlo A Marra

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06650423 (ONCO-ADHER), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06650423 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

ONCO-ADHER: Adherence to Treatment With Aromatase Inhibitors With or Without Abemaciclib in Patients With Early-stage, Endocrine-dependent, HER2-negative Breast Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorInstitute of Oncology LjubljanaRan2025 to 2027Enrolled319ConditionsEarly Breast Cancer, Hormone Receptor Positive Tumor, HER2-negative Breast Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Development and Validation of Data-Driven Estimates of Recurrence Risk and Treatment Benefit in Early Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hui Yee YeoSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-9690-3532
Ai Ch'i LiewClinical Research Center, Hospital Seberang Jaya, Penang, Malaysia.
Suz Jack ChanSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Mudassir AnwarSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-4714-6130
Catherine Hye-Won HanFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-1016-3113
Carlo A MarraSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-2625-2121
University of Otago · NZHospital Seberang Jaya · MYUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Conventionally, optimal treatment strategies for breast cancer have been largely determined by physicians, with a scant understanding of patients' treatment values and preferences. Incorporating patient preferences in the decision-making process for breast cancer treatment is gaining recognition and can potentially improve treatment outcomes and compliance. This scoping review aims to synthesize evidence on the key determinants that are most valued by breast cancer patients when deciding on their treatment options. Methods: We searched three electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and CINAHL Plus) utilizing a systematic scoping review method. Two reviewers independently screened, applied inclusion criteria, reviewed, and synthesized findings. A mixed-method narrative approach combining the inductive thematic analysis and content analysis methodologies was used to synthesize and summarize the findings. Results: The review included 22 studies, leading to the conceptualization of 5 overarching themes and 17 sub-themes. Among these, the most frequently cited theme was treatment benefits, followed by treatment-related process, treatment-related risk, quality of life, and cost of treatment. Women with breast cancer highly value treatments that offer good effectiveness, prolong survival, prevent recurrence, and maintain quality of life. Patient concerns include treatment-related side effects, safety, the risk of secondary cancer, and direct or indirect out-of-pocket costs. Additionally, patients also consider treatment duration, mode of administration, physician recommendation, and treatment availability and accessibility when deciding on their preferred treatment. Conclusion: The evidence synthesized in this review offers insights into refining breast cancer treatment strategies to align more closely with patient values. Recognizing and integrating patient perspectives in breast cancer care could potentially lead to improved treatment outcomes, enhanced patient compliance, and more personalized care. Healthcare professionals are encouraged to incorporate these key determinants in their treatment decision-making processes, aiming to deliver a patient-centered care that aligns with the unique preferences and values of each patient.

Indexed as

breast cancernarrative scoping reviewpatient preferencetreatment decision making

Identifiers

PMID37927344
PMCPMC10625390
OpenAlexW4388083889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.