ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Interventions for enhancing resilience in breast cancer patients: a realist review.
Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. 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.
- NUPR1 in breast cancer: mechanisms and potential applications.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is a growing global health issue. The treatment of breast cancer has a significant impact on women's health. Various efficacious interventions are available to enhance resilience. However, it remains unclear what mechanisms are triggered or if specific contexts favor the activation of different mechanisms. This review aims to comprehend how the different interventions lead to changes in resilience in breast cancer patients.
methodThis study followed a realist review approach with an iterative design. First, the research scope was defined and an initial conceptual model was developed. Relevant evidence was then searched and collated from nine databases. Studies on interventions to improve resilience in patients with breast cancer were included. The included studies were appraised using the RAMESES standards for relevance and rigor. Data on study characteristics, contexts, interventions, and outcomes were extracted, and context-mechanism-outcome (C-M-O) configurations were identified, classified, and qualitatively synthesized across interventions.
resultsA total of 65 articles were included. The intervention on resilience was administered to patients with breast cancer of all tumor stages. Key outcomes were grouped: resilience, quality of life, treatment compliance, nursing satisfaction, etc. The mechanisms identified underpinning change outcomes related to interventions (e.g., cognitive intervention) on resilience encompassed the sub-themes of external factors (e.g., social support, collective endeavor, supervision, feedback), self-response and resources (e.g., positive psychological resources, emotional connection), individual changes (e.g., mood change, cognitive change, active coping).
conclusionsThe success of interventions for breast cancer patients depends on the quality of interactions of mechanisms. Taking into account contextual factors and the interaction process of individuals (e.g., positive psychological) and the environment (e.g., collective endeavor) promotes resilience's occurrence, development, and effect can increase the likelihood of successful interventions. To better improve the resilience of breast cancer patients, intervention schemes targeted at activating these mechanisms should be formulated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42026198What 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.