ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2024
Survivorship care in breast cancer: understanding implementation barriers through the lens of the Theoretical Domains Framework.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bridging gaps in breast cancer care: a Breast Cancer Care Quality Index to improve outcomes worldwide.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer survivorship guidelines with specific recommendations on managing long-term effects are available, but uptake in clinical practice remains low. Using the lens of the Theoretical Domains Framework, we aimed to understand key factors in guideline-concordant management of long-term effects to inform future implementation efforts in clinical practice contexts.
methodsAs part of a broader survey of oncologists, a theory-guided questionnaire was developed. Oncologists were asked to report level of agreement with Theoretical Domains Framework-based statements, current usage and perceived value of survivorship resources, and frequency of managing long-term effects in routine care. Data analyses included psychometric assessment of the questionnaire, descriptive summaries of theoretical domains and survivorship resources, and multivariable logistic regression models.
resultsIn total, 217 oncologists completed the Theoretical Domains Framework-based questionnaire; 54% of oncologists reported "always or almost always" evaluating physical effects at routine survivorship appointments, while 34% did so for psychosocial effects. In regression models, Environmental Context and Resources was the only theoretical domain found to be statistically significantly associated with "always or almost always" evaluating both physical (odds ratio = 0.29, 95% confidence interval = 0.09 to 0.80) and psychosocial (odds ratio = 0.09, 95% confidence interval = 0.02 to 0.35) effects.
conclusionsFindings support application of the Theoretical Domains Framework in understanding oncologists' behaviors and perceived barriers in managing long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. In future implementation efforts, this theory-informed approach can be used to target relevant domains and strategies focused on embedding guideline recommendations in the clinical context through structured resources and environmental supports.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.