Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38871994›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2026

Cancer survivor preferences for breast cancer follow-up care: a discrete choice experiment.

Sameera Senanayake, Sanjeewa Kularatna, Fiona Crawford-Williams, David Brain, Michelle Allen, Ruvini M Hettiarachchi, Nicolas H Hart, Bogda Koczwara, Carolyn Ee, Raymond J Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effectiveness of telehealth versus face-to-face appointments in identifying complications following breast cancer surgery.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Sameera SenanayakeAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 60 Musk Avenue, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia. s2.senanayake@qut.edu.au.
Sanjeewa KularatnaAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 60 Musk Avenue, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Fiona Crawford-WilliamsCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
David BrainAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 60 Musk Avenue, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Michelle AllenAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 60 Musk Avenue, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Ruvini M HettiarachchiCentre for the Business and Economics of Health (CBEH), University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Nicolas H HartCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Bogda KoczwaraCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Carolyn EeCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Raymond J ChanCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify the key attributes of breast cancer follow-up care models preferred by cancer survivors in Australia.

methodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for attributes of breast cancer follow-up care. Respondents were presented with two hypothetical scenarios, known as choice sets, and asked to select a preference. Respondents were individuals living in Australia who were diagnosed with breast cancer within the past five years prior to survey completion and were recruited through the Breast Cancer Network of Australia and other community or consumer networks. Latent class modelling (LCM) approach under a random utility framework was used for the analysis.

results123 breast cancer survivors completed the DCE survey. LCA revealed two latent classes, those with older age and lower quality of life (class 1) and younger women with higher quality of life (class 2). Class 2 preferred a care team comprising specialists, nurses and GPs and emphasised the importance of shared survivorship care plans. Class 1 remained neutral regarding the team's composition but was notably concerned about the out-of-pocket costs per consultation, a finding not seen in Class 2.

conclusionsAge and quality of life status are associated with patient preference for types and attributes of breast cancer follow-up care. The health system can work towards enhancing flexibility of follow-up care delivery, ultimately achieving person-centred care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Efforts need to be made by policymakers to ensure consumer preferences are taken into consideration to implement tailored person-centred follow-up care pathways.

Indexed as

AftercareBreast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsChoice BehaviorPatient PreferenceAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesBreast cancerDiscrete choice experimentPatient-preferenceSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID38871994
PMCPMC12906538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.