ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Development and Psychometric Validation of the Breast Cancer Stigma Assessment Scale for Women with Breast Cancer and Its Survivors.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing stigma in Chinese postoperative breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Development and psychometric properties of a general cancer stigma scale.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Supportive care needs related to the sexual quality of life of the spouses of ostomy patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer: a descriptive phenomenological study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the breast cancer stigma assessment scale among Chinese patients.Frontiers in psychology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increase in breast cancer cases and breast cancer survival makes it advisable to quantify the impact of the health-related stigma of this disease. PURPOSE/
objectivesTo develop and validate a breast cancer stigma scale in Spanish.
methodsWomen diagnosed with, or survivors of, breast cancer were included. The development of the Breast Cancer Stigma Assessment Scale (BCSAS) involved both a literature review and personal interviews. Content validity was assessed using a Delphi study and a pilot test; construct validity was evaluated using an exploratory factor analysis; and convergent validity was assessed using six scales. Cronbach's α internal consistency and test-retest reliability were used to determine the reliability of the scales.
results231 women responded to the 28-item scale. The BCSAS showed good reliability, with α = 0.897. Seven factors emerged: concealment (α = 0.765), disturbance (α = 0.772), internalized stigma (α = 0.750), aesthetics (α = 0.779), course (α = 0.599), danger (α = 0.502), and origin (α = 0.350). The test-retest reliability was 0.830 (
conclusionsThe BCSAS is a reliable and valid measure of stigma in women with breast cancer and its survivors. It could be useful for detecting stigma risk and establishing psychotherapeutic and care priorities.
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.