ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Expert and Patient Evaluation of an Education Tool for Breast Cancer Patients on Endocrine Therapy: Assessment of Usability, Knowledge and Medication Beliefs.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-adherence to endocrine therapy was associated with insufficient knowledge and poor beliefs towards treatment. A culturally-appropriate education tool may be needed to improve patient care. This study aimed to evaluate a newly developed education tool, with two phases of evaluation involving experts and potential users consisting of breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy. Expert evaluation involved assessment by a multi-disciplinary panel (n = 10) using three tools to assess different aspects of quality: Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP); Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), which consists of Understandability and Actionability scales; and Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). The mean scores for EQIP (90.3%), PEMAT (Understandability: 98.2%; Actionability: 96.3%) and SAM (93.4%) revealed that the education tool exhibited good quality. User-based evaluation utilised pre- and post-questionnaires to evaluate user satisfaction via Consumer Information Rating Form (CIRF) and to evaluate the effects of the education tool on knowledge as well as beliefs, assessed using Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). Patients were recruited from a university hospital and a national cancer institute. Results from CIRF indicated that the participants (n = 62) were satisfied with the comprehensibility, utility and design quality of the education tool. There was a significant improvement for knowledge (1.89 vs. 3.39, p < 0.01) and BMQ-General scores: General-Harm (2.24 vs. 1.91, p < 0.01) and General-Overuse (2.81 vs. 2.44, p < 0.01) after patients were introduced to the education tool. The findings indicated that the education tool may help to improve education for breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41520092What 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.