Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42804207›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Perceptions of Chemoprevention Among Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer.

Romi Eli, Harry West, Alissa M Michel, John P Allegrante, Jarvis J Tse, Ian M Kronish, Katherine D Crew, Rita Kukafka

Abstract read
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

8 authors.

Romi EliDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Harry WestFu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Alissa M MichelDepartment of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
John P AllegranteDepartment of Health Studies and Applied Educational Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Jarvis J TseDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Ian M KronishCenter for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Katherine D CrewDepartment of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
Rita KukafkaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Breast cancer (BC) chemoprevention (CP) is highly effective in reducing invasive BC risk, yet uptake among eligible women at high risk remains critically low. Prior research has not adequately examined CP decision-making alongside other primary prevention therapies, such as statins, in the practical context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Objective: To identify cognitive, emotional, and perceptual factors associated with accepting statins while declining or deferring breast cancer chemoprevention. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this exploratory qualitative study, in-depth semistructured interviews were conducted at a single academic health system between December 2024 and June 2025 with women aged 40 to 79 years at elevated risk for BC. Interviews focused on experiences with and perceptions of both BC chemoprevention and statin therapy. Analysis used an iterative, team-based thematic approach supported by a novel hybrid artificial intelligence-human coding workflow. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were themes identified through thematic analysis that explain systematic differences in patient acceptance of statins and deferral of CP agents. Results: Among 17 women with high risk for BC (mean [SD] age, 54.5 [10.6] years), 3 overarching categories of themes were identified: (1) risk framing, (2) trade-offs, and (3) pathway complexity. Statins were commonly framed as routine, low-burden, measurable interventions that fit easily into a familiar model of preventive care. In contrast, CP was often perceived as a high-burden, uncertainty-heavy, identity-relevant cancer treatment with benefits experienced as probabilistic, long-term, and invisible. This asymmetry was amplified by multimorbidity and polypharmacy, contributing to treatment fatigue and fragmented clinical pathways in which statins receive clear, prescriptive guidance; however, CP is offered through nondirective, complex discussions across multiple specialists. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, the divergence in women's decisions about statins vs CP reflected a systematic interplay of drug-specific beliefs, emotional heuristics, and health system structures. These asymmetries may be addressed by reframing CP as a member of a family of preventive risk-reducing medications, presenting it as a reversible and time-limited trial, and embedding it in clearer, more integrated clinical communication with decision support, which may increase appropriate CP uptake among women at high risk.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsChemopreventionHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID42804207
PMCPMC13621250

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.