ArticlePsycho-oncology2026
Labels, Language and Other Strategies to Improve Communication About Lowest Grade Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Qualitative Interviews With Women and Physicians.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWomen diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and clinicians have reported challenges in communication about DCIS, contributing to women's confusion and anxiety. This study explored how to improve communication about DCIS including alternative labels, language and other strategies.
methodsWe interviewed women from July 2024-January 2025 who had DCIS and clinicians from across Canada, and analyzed themes using Communication Accommodation Theory.
resultsParticipants included 12 women (67% aged 45 to 65, 58% non-White) and 16 clinicians of diverse specialties (87% women, 63% mid career). Women and clinicians held divergent views about an alternative label for DCIS. Women preferred "abnormal cells" over "DCIS" to avoid the word cancer. Clinicians preferred precursor labels (e.g., stage 0 cancer, pre-cancer) over abnormal cells and felt confident explaining DCIS using precursor labels, which triggered women's concern. Women and clinicians held convergent views on how to improve communication about DCIS including language (use lay language rather than technical jargon, explicitly distinguishing DCIS from invasive breast cancer, address the risk of spread beyond the breast ducts and mortality) and other strategies (take time to educate women, using visual aids, providing take-home information, tailoring pathology reports to patients).
conclusionsThis study adds to prior research that identified challenges to communication about DCIS but did not fully examine how to improve communication. Several implications emerged for policy (consider formal label change) and practice (share communication aids or other tools with clinicians and patients). Future research should develop and evaluate the impact of these approaches.
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.