Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42734916›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Research Study Attrition and Participant-Informed Retention Strategies Among Cancer Survivors.

Antonio Di Meglio, Camila Kelly Chiodi, Julie Havas, Elise Martin, Petya Zyumbileva, Pietro Lapidari, Martina Pagliuca, Mariam Chichua, Emma Gillanders, Guillemette Jacob and 19 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

29 authors.

Antonio Di MeglioUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Camila Kelly ChiodiUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Julie HavasUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Elise MartinUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Petya ZyumbilevaUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Pietro LapidariUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Martina PagliucaUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Mariam ChichuaUniversity of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Emma GillandersUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Guillemette JacobSeintinelles, Paris, France.
Romaine DesjardinSeintinelles, Paris, France.
Aude BarbierUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Aurelie BertautMethodology and biostatistics unit, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon, France.
Diane BoinonInterdisciplinary Department of Patient Pathways, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Barbara PistilliDepartment of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Anne-Laure MartinData and Partnerships department, Unicancer, Paris, France.
Sibille EverhardData and Partnerships department, Unicancer, Paris, France.
Christelle JouannaudDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Godinot, Reims, France.
Coureche KaderbhaiMethodology and biostatistics unit, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon, France.
Anne KiefferDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Loraine - Alexis Vautrin, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Olivier TrédanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Léon Bérad, Lyon, France.
Christelle LevyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France.
Olivier RigalDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France.
Matteo LambertiniDepartment of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, School of Medicine, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Stefan MichielsOncostat, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Inserm U1018, University Paris-Saclay, Ligue Contre le Cancer, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Fabrice AndréUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Gwenn MenvielleUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Maria Alice FranzoiUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.
Ines Vaz-LuisUniversité Paris-Saclay, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Gustave Roussy, Inserm, Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations, Villejuif, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Attrition in longitudinal cancer cohorts compromises data completeness, introduces bias, and limits generalizability. Objective: To quantify nonresponsiveness over time in a contemporary cohort of cancer survivors, identify individual- and center-level factors associated with nonresponsiveness, and elicit participant-informed strategies to strengthen long-term engagement and retention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a mixed-methods design integrating cohort analyses among patients enrolled in a longitudinal study from 2012 to 2018 and a national cross-sectional survey and qualitative thematic analyses among participants enrolled in 2023. Cohort analyses were conducted among patients recruited from the Cancer Toxicity (CANTO) study, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal cohort of survivors of stage I to III breast cancer, with assessments at diagnosis and years 1, 2, 4, and 6. The national survey was distributed online through the Seintinelles collaborative research network to cancer survivors and individuals without cancer. Remote interviews and focus groups participants were recruited from CANTO. The final analyses were performed in June 2026. Exposure: Baseline sociodemographic, behavioral, treatment-related, and center-level characteristics; survey-reported preferences, barriers, and facilitators; and qualitative accounts of participation experiences. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome of interest was nonresponsiveness at each follow-up, defined as completion of none of the protocol-specified clinical, socioeconomic, or patient-reported outcome assessments. Multivariable logistic regression estimated factors associated with nonresponsiveness. Survey responses and qualitative themes characterized participant-informed retention strategies. Results: Among 11 413 CANTO participants, mean (SD) age was 56.4 (11.3) years and 4019 (42.4%) reported a monthly household income of €3000 or higher. Nonresponsiveness increased from 149 participants (1.3%) at year 1 to 1016 participants (9.1%) at year 2, 1738 participants (16.1%) at year 4, and 2512 participants (25.8%) at year 6. Factors associated with higher nonresponsiveness at the 4-year follow-up included lower socioeconomic status (income <€1500 vs ≥€3000: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51 [95% CI, 1.18-1.93]), unhealthy behaviors (current/former smokers vs never smokers: aOR, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.19-1.58]), and enrollment at smaller centers (vs larger: aOR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.43-2.48]), with consistent findings at year 6. Among 2383 survey respondents (1295 respondents [55.8%] aged 40-65 years; 2203 [96.5%] female), 1982 (94.8%) preferred remote questionnaire completion, 1994 (95.4%) preferred digital completion, 1606 (67.4%) valued flexible scheduling, and 1494 (71.4%) reported that regular study updates or result-sharing events would encourage participation. Qualitative findings among 30 participants further highlighted reduced burden, decentralized participation, navigation support, clearer communication, and feedback on study progress and findings as key facilitators. Conclusions and Relevance: In this mixed methods cohort study of survivors enrolled in a large longitudinal breast cancer cohort, nonresponsiveness increased over time and was socially, clinically, and organizationally patterned. Survey and qualitative findings suggested that participant-centered retention strategies should combine procedural flexibility, remote follow-up, navigation support, targeted communication, and regular feedback and informed the design of a digitally enabled, multimodal retention intervention.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsPatient ParticipationAdultAgedCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID42734916
PMCPMC13576432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.