ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
The Comparative Effectiveness of Education Modalities on Patient Adherence in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEducational interventions are central to breast cancer survivorship care, yet adherence may vary depending on delivery modality.
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of face-to-face, online, telephonic, and mixed educational modalities on patient adherence among breast cancer survivors.
methodsA systematic review of randomized controlled trials and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Randomized controlled trials evaluating educational interventions in breast cancer survivors were included. Methodology quality of included studies was assessed using the RoB-2 tool. Pairwise meta-analyses using random-effects models estimated Odds Ratios (ORs) for adherence. A Bayesian network meta-analysis synthesized direct and indirect evidence, and treatment rankings were calculated using SUCRA values.
resultsEleven trials comprising 963 participants were included. In pairwise meta-analysis, no modality demonstrated statistically significant superiority over usual care: face-to-face (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.44-1.41), mixed (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.07-2.37), online (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.49-1.68), and telephonic (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.18-1.78). The network meta-analysis confirmed the absence of statistically significant differences across modalities. SUCRA rankings suggested that usual care (76.7%) and online modalities (73.1%) had the highest probability of being among the best-performing strategies, followed by face-to-face (51.9%), telephonic (25.4%), and mixed (23.0%).
conclusionsNo educational modality demonstrated superior adherence compared to usual care. Delivery format alone may not determine engagement in breast cancer survivorship programs. Decisions should prioritize feasibility and patient preference.
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.