Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40382452›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2025

Impact of a Web-Based Decision Aid on Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Patients' Engagement in Breast Surgery Decision-Making: Stepped-Wedge Clinical Trial (Alliance-A231701CD).

Jessica R Schumacher, Bret M Hanlon, David Zahrieh, Paul J Rathouz, Jennifer L Tucholka, Grace McKinney, Angelina D Tan, Catherine R Breuer, Lisa Bailey, Anna M Higham and 11 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Providing information to prepare breast cancer patients for their surgical consultation: barriers and recommendations (an analysis from Alliance A231701CD).Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
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

21 authors.

Jessica R SchumacherUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Bret M HanlonUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
David ZahriehAlliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Paul J RathouzUniversity of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Jennifer L TucholkaUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Grace McKinneyUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Angelina D TanAlliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Catherine R BreuerUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Lisa BaileyBay Area Tumor Institute, Oakland, CA, USA.
Anna M HighamCarle Cancer Center, Urbana, IL, USA.
Julie S WecslerStroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, IL, USA.
Alicia H ArnoldAugusta University Health/Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA.
Anthony J FroixUniversity of Texas-Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
Scott DullMontana Cancer Consortium NCORP, Billings Clinic, Billings, MT, USA.
Andrea M AbbottMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Stephanie G FineUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Kandace P McGuireVirginia Commonwealth University/Massey Cancer Center, Richmond, VA, USA.
Anna S SeydelMarshfield Clinic, Marshfield, WI, USA.
Patricia McNamaraAlliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Selina ChowAlliance Protocol Operations Office, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Heather B NeumanUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. neuman@surgery.wisc.edu.

Funding

Collaborations and NCORP Collective ManagementUG1CA189823 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Evanthia Galanis, Olwen Hahn · 2014 to 2026
$120.6M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS025194AHRQ HHS R01HS025194NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189823NCI NIH HHS UG1CA189823
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision aids (DAs) may increase engagement in decision-making by addressing barriers that disproportionately impact socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. The impact of a breast cancer surgery DA on increasing patient engagement in decision-making was tested in clinics serving a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.

methodsA stepped-wedge trial was conducted with 10 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program clinics (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, June 2019 to December 2021). The clinics were randomized to time of transition from usual care (UC) to delivery of a web-based DA. Patients with stages 0-3 breast cancer eligible for surgery provided consent before a surgical consultation. Engagement was measured by Patient's Self-Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI-5, follow-up survey) and count of Active Patient Behaviors (audio-recorded consultation). Intervention effects were tested with linear mixed-effects models, accounting for surgeon and clinic-level clustering, time, and enrollment after COVID. Heterogeneity of treatment effect by socioeconomic disadvantage (using the Area Deprivation Index) was assessed with an interaction term.

resultsThe study enrolled 576 patients, and 44 % (136/309) of the patients reviewed the DA. No significant difference in engagement was observed between DA and UC for PEPPI-5 (- 0.8; 95 % CI, - 2.1-0.6; p = 0.260) or Active Patient Behaviors (2.5; 95 % CI, - 4.1-9.2; p = 0.456). No heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed. Socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with fewer Active Patient Behaviors (- 5.9; 95 % CI, - 0.6-- 1.2; p = 0.013).

conclusionThis trial conducted in clinics that serve diverse populations, observed no significant relationship between a web-based DA and patient engagement. Future analyses will explore DA implementation, characteristics of patients who reviewed the DA, and persistent barriers to engagement.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesInternetMastectomyPatient ParticipationVulnerable PopulationsAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsPrognosisSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID40382452
PMCPMC12222412

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.