ArticleBJC reports2024
Using the Candidacy Framework to understand individual, interpersonal, and system level factors driving inequities in women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BJC reports, 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.
- Utility of the Social Vulnerability Index in Addressing Breast Cancer Disparities: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- An adapted health system access framework for avoidable inflammatory bowel disease admissions: a scoping review.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2026Review
- A scoping review of how the candidacy framework has been used in research on access to general practice.Journal of health services research & policy · 2026Article
- Experience of NHS diagnostic investigation following a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening test: qualitative interviews with NHS-Galleri trial participants who had a cancer signal detected.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPersistent inequities in breast cancer outcomes exist. Understanding women's experiences along the care pathway is the first step to finding solutions to tackle these inequities.
methodsSecondary data analysis of the 2017/2018 English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n = 25,408) using logistic regression to explore inequities in care experience by sociodemographic factors (age, ethnicity, socioeconomic position, sexual orientation) across 59 survey questions. We used the Candidacy Framework to interpret and organise our findings.
resultsCompared to older (65-74) and White British women, young (35-44, OR = 0.55 [0.44, 0.69]), Asian (OR = 0.52 [0.41, 0.67]), Black (OR = 0.67 [0.46, 0.97]) and White Other (OR = 0.63 [0.49, 0.81]) women were more likely to rate their overall care experience less positively, respectively. Similar findings were observed along all domains of the cancer pathway. Through a candidacy lens, we identified multilevel factors related to this variation including prolonged help-seeking behaviours (individual), poor patient-provider communication (interpersonal), and variation in access to healthcare professionals and resources (system level).
conclusionMultilevel factors influence inequities in the experience of care along the breast cancer pathway for young women and women from minoritised groups. Interventions are necessary to ensure cancer care systems are responsive to women's health needs and provide equity of care to all patients.
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.