ArticleBMJ open2026
Age, patient experience and satisfaction with breast cancer care: a cohort study using linked national cancer patient experience survey and cancer registry data.
Article in BMJ open, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine whether satisfaction with information provision and involvement in decision-making among people with breast cancer (BC) treated in English hospitals was associated with age and other patient characteristics.
designRetrospective population-based cohort study, conducted as part of the National Audit of Primary Breast Cancer and the National Audit of Metastatic Breast Cancer.
settingNational Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) responses linked to National Cancer Registration data for BC patients (stage 0-4) diagnosed between 2017 and 2021.
participants40 018 patients diagnosed with BC who responded to CPES between 2017 and 2021. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to questions about overall experience of care, satisfaction with information provision, involvement in decision-making and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) contact were examined. The relationships between responses, personal, disease and clinical characteristics were analysed using multivariable Poisson regression.
results90% of patients rated their overall care as ≥8 out of 10 (0=very poor; 10=very good), decreasing to 82% for those aged <40 years (p<0.001). Adjusted analysis showed that stage 4 disease (incidence risk ratio (IRR) 1.19; CI 1.02 to 1.40; p<0.001), the highest deprivation (IRR 1.18; CI 1.07 to 1.30; p<0.001) and Asian (IRR 1.60; CI 1.42 to 1.82; p<0.001) or Black (IRR 1.53; CI 1.30 to 1.80; p<0.001) ethnicity were associated with a negative overall care experience. Satisfaction was high for information provision (85%) and involvement in decisions (81%), but lower among younger patients and those with advanced stage disease (both p<0.001). Fewer than 70% of patients aged <40 years felt sufficiently involved in decisions, compared with 81% >40 years (p<0.001). Patients with stage 4 disease were more likely to report dissatisfaction with involvement in decision-making (IRR 1.50: CI 1.36 to 2.67; p<0.001). Most patients (95%) had a named CNS, with 85% reporting ease of contact.
conclusionMost patients reported high satisfaction with their BC care. Satisfaction was consistently lower among younger people and those with advanced disease; this finding might partly reflect more complex pathways but requires further exploration, ideally in partnership with patients to codesign solutions. Actionable remedial strategies are proposed.
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.