ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Development and validation of CORe-MBC: a pragmatic measure of participatory care for adults with metastatic breast cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Abstract
Introduction: Existing research has linked increased patient participation in oncology care to greater patient satisfaction, enhanced quality of life, and improved healthcare utilization among patients with cancer. Yet, current measures of patient engagement and similar constructs do not reflect the unique experiences of patients with metastatic breast cancer; they also have limitations in terms of modality, cost, and potential for integration into clinical care. To address this, we sought to develop a new measure of participatory care in metastatic breast cancer care, referred to as the Capacity, Opportunity, and Resources in Metastatic Breast Cancer (CORe-MBC) that could be easily used in clinical care. Methods: A comprehensive pool of candidate items for CORe-MBC was created with input from MBC patients, oncologists, and experts in measure development. Items were tested among 130 English-speaking patients with MBC recruited from a large academic oncology center; participants also completed validated measures of health activation, self-efficacy, satisfaction with care, and social support (e.g., emotional, informational, and tangible). Psychometric testing included exploratory factor analyses, using oblique rotations to evaluate factor structure, and parallel analysis to test for dimensionality. Results: Patients' ages ranged from 34 to 90 years. The majority (82%) identified as White, one-third (34%) had less than a college degree, and almost all (99%) were female. Candidate items loaded onto three factors (all factor loadings >.5), reflecting the domains of capacity, opportunity, and resources. A total of 10 items were selected for the final measure. Items demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.83). Domains of capacity, opportunity, and resources demonstrated moderate to high construct validity with comparable measures of patient activation (r = 0.56, p <.0001) and self-efficacy (r = 0.31-0.40, p < 0.0005), and multiple measures of satisfaction with healthcare (r = 0.42-0.55, p <.0001), and social support (r = 0.52-0.75, p <.0001), respectively. Conclusion: The CORe-MBC measure appears to be psychometrically valid and reliable. Additional studies are ongoing to further validate use of the tool among diverse populations and within a variety of oncology practices, with the goal of providing clinicians with actionable insights to tailor and improve care.
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.