ArticleMethodsX2026
Assessing health beliefs and patient delay among breast cancer patients in West Sumatra, Indonesia.
Article in MethodsX, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Delays in receiving a breast cancer (BC) diagnosis and treatment continue to be a major public health concern, particularly in environments where financial status, cultural values, and religious beliefs have a significant impact on how individuals react to disease. However, there are still few established, culturally appropriate instruments for assessing Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs and comprehending how they contribute to patient delay. In this study, a protocol for evaluating HBM components and investigating their connection to patient delay among patients with BC in West Sumatra, Indonesia, is presented. A 31-item questionnaire encompassing six HBM domains: perceived risk, severity, benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and cues to action was used to gather data from 250 BCE patients in this cross-sectional study. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five meaningful latent constructs, and one poorly performing item was removed to strengthen the instrument. Good internal consistency was shown by the final tool (Cronbach's α: 0.809-0.871). Associations between HBM components and patient delay were then examined through logistic regression using crude and adjusted models. The protocol proved practical and feasible in a community setting.
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.