ArticlePsycho-oncology2025
Causal Attributions in Patients With Breast and Gynecological Cancers: A Scoping Review.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Causal Attributions in Patients With Breast and Gynecological Cancers: A Scoping Review.Psycho-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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveUnderstanding how patients with cancer attribute their illness is crucial for improving public health interventions and support strategies. This scoping review explores perceived causal attributions among women with breast and gynecological cancers, focusing on quantitative studies. It further examines regional and temporal patterns and identifies gaps in public awareness.
methodsA literature search was conducted in four electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and APA PsycINFO. Eligible studies focusing on women diagnosed with breast or gynecological cancers and their perceived causal attributions were included. Filters were applied for language (English, Korean), publication type (original article), and time-period (1949-2025). Data were extracted, categorized, and analyzed descriptively.
resultsOur search identified 3072 studies, of which 41 met the inclusion criteria. Psychological risk factors, particularly stress, were the most frequently reported top-ranked causal attributions (50.0%), followed by biological risk factors (23.8%), while behavioral risk factors were under-recognized. The Western population was more focused on biological risk factors, whereas non-Western population more frequently reported psychological and environmental factors. Moreover, studies published after 2015 reported an increased emphasis on psychological risk factors, while attributions to fate or chance diminished significantly.
conclusionThe persistent over-attribution of psychological risk factors and under-recognition of behavioral risk factors highlight the need for targeted education and campaigns. Cultural and societal influences shape these perceptions, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based education to improve cancer awareness and prevention strategies.
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.