ArticleBMJ open2024
Breast cancer research gaps: a questionnaire-based study to determine overall priorities and compare the priorities of patients, the public, clinicians and scientists.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to prioritise the themes identified from the three gap analyses performed by a combination of scientists, clinicians, patients and members of the public to determine areas in breast cancer care where research is lacking. We also aimed to compare the priorities of areas of agreed research need between patients, the public, clinicians and scientists.
designA cross-section of patients, public, clinicians and scientists completed a prioritisation exercise to rank the identified themes where research is lacking in breast cancer care.
participantsPatients, clinicians and scientists who have experienced, managed or worked in the field of breast cancer and members of the public.
methodsThe research areas identified in the Breast Cancer Campaign, Association of Breast Surgery and North West Breast Research Collaborative gap analyses were outlined as 22 themes in lay terminology. Patients, members of the public, clinicians and scientists were invited to complete the prioritisation exercise, on paper or electronically, ranking the themes from 1 to 22. Comparisons were made with arithmetic mean ranking.
resultsOf the 510 prioritisation exercises completed, 179 (35%) participants were patients, 162 (32%) public, 43 (8%) scientists and 122 (24%) clinicians. The theme ranked of highest priority overall was 'better prevention' (arithmetic mean rank 6.4 (SE 0.23)). 'Better prevention' was ranked top or second by patients, public and clinicians (7 (0.39), 4.7 (0.34) and 6.8 (0.5), respectively), however, scientists ranked this as their sixth most important factor (7.7 (0.92)). The public and clinicians had good agreement with patients (r=0.84 and r=0.75, respectively), whereas scientists had moderate agreement with patients (r=0.65). Certain themes were ranked significantly differently by participant groups. Compared with clinicians, patients prioritised research into 'alternative to mammograms', 'diagnostic (cancer) blood test' and 'rare cancers' (OR 2.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 3.5), p=0.002, OR 2.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 3.5), p=0.004 and OR 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.8), p=0.03). Compared with scientists, patients deprioritised 'better laboratory models' (OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.8), p=0.01).
conclusionThis study demonstrates that patients, public, clinicians and scientists have different research priorities, with scientists being a particular outlier. This highlights the need to ensure the engagement of patients and public in research funding prioritisation decisions.
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.