ArticleCancers2024
Evaluation of the Implementation of the Dutch Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid including Personalized Risk Estimates in the SHOUT-BC Study: A Mixed Methods Approach.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the effectiveness of a risk prediction model (PERSARC) on improving treatment decisions quality for patients with soft-tissue sarcomas: the VALUE-PERSARC study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Trial
- Understanding patient perspectives on breast cancer risk: a qualitative study to inform genetic testing communication in the primary care setting.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Patient- and Physician-Identified Considerations for Clinical Implementation of a New Risk-Based Prediction Tool to Guide Surveillance Mammography in Breast Cancer Survivors.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Patient perceptions around the use of clinico-pathologic and genomic tools in the management of early breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Risk-Prediction Models for Clinical Decision-Making in Sarcoma Care: An International Survey Among Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Clinicians.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo improve Shared decision-making (SDM) regarding personalized post-treatment surveillance, the Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA), integrating personalized risk information, was developed and implemented in eight hospitals. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to (1) assess the implementation and participation rates, (2) identify facilitators and barriers for use by health care professionals (HCPs), (3) quantify the observed level of SDM, and (4) evaluate risk communication and SDM application in consultations.
methodsImplementation and participation rates and patients' BCS-PtDA use were calculated using hospital registry data and BCS-PtDA log data. HCPs' perspective on facilitators and barriers were collected using the MIDI framework. Observed SDM levels in consultation transcripts were quantified using the OPTION-5 scale. Thematic analysis was performed to assess consultation content.
resultsThe average PtDA implementation and participation rates were, respectively, 26% and 61%. HCPs reported that the PtDA supported choice awareness. Reported barriers for implementation were mainly increased workload and a lack of perceived benefits. The consultation analysis ( DISCUSSION: When the BCS-PtDA was used, patients were clearly given a choice regarding their post-treatment surveillance, but information provision and SDM application can be improved.
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.