Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42875714›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026

Experiential Support Across Breast Cancer Care and Familial Breast Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment in Quebec, Canada: A Comparative Study of Accompanying Patients' Contributions.

Karine Bouchard, Michel Dorval, Lynda Bélanger, Jocelyne Chiquette, Madeleine Côté, Cécile Vialaron, Louise Normandin, Monica Iliescu Nelea, Amel Ben Ahmed, Marie-Pascale Pomey

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 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

10 authors.

Karine BouchardCentre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, City of Québec, Quebec, Canada.
Michel DorvalCentre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, City of Québec, Quebec, Canada.
Lynda BélangerCentre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, City of Québec, Quebec, Canada.
Jocelyne ChiquetteCentre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, City of Québec, Quebec, Canada.
Madeleine CôtéCentre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, City of Québec, Quebec, Canada.
Cécile VialaronCentre de Recherche du CHUM, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Louise NormandinCentre de Recherche du CHUM, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Monica Iliescu NeleaCentre de Recherche du CHUM, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Amel Ben AhmedCentre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, City of Québec, Quebec, Canada.
Marie-Pascale PomeyCentre de Recherche du CHUM, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. pascale.pomey@umontreal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5180-8139

Funding

CIHR Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistère de la santé et des services sociaux (MSSS) du Québec Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux (MSSS) du QuébecQuébec Breast Cancer Foundation Québec Breast Cancer Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe integration of peer support by accompanying peers (APs) into oncology care settings enhances the patient's experience through the contribution of their experiential knowledge. APs play a key role in providing emotional support, active listening, information, and shared lived experiences. However, little is known about how different clinical settings-such as a genetic risk assessment and oncological treatment-influence how these contributions are expressed and perceived.

objectiveThis study assessed whether the perceived contributions of accompanying peers (APs) varied across three groups of women involved in breast-cancer-related clinical pathways: (1) unaffected women undergoing familial breast cancer genetic risk assessment; (2) affected women undergoing familial breast cancer genetic risk assessment; and (3) affected women receiving breast cancer oncological care.

methodEncounters with APs were organized in two hospital-based settings in Quebec, Canada participating in the same program: a hereditary cancer risk assessment setting and an oncology care setting. Women were classified into three groups according to clinical pathway: Group 1, unaffected women undergoing familial breast cancer genetic risk assessment; Group 2, affected women undergoing familial breast cancer genetic risk assessment; and Group 3, affected women receiving breast cancer oncological care. Peer support was offered by the clinical team as part of the clinical pathway. These encounters were conducted by telephone, videoconference or in person in the healthcare setting. An online questionnaire, completed by the women in the days following the peer support encounter, assessed sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the support experience, psychological distress (K6), cancer coping skills (CASE-cancer) and the APs' contributions. Prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated to compare the proportions of women reporting APs' contributions across clinical pathways. The analysis was adjusted for age, education, parental status, partner status and employment status. Both settings were part of the same PAROLE-Onco implementation and relied on the same overall process for integrating APs, although they corresponded to different points along the breast-cancer-related care pathway.

results101 women completed the questionnaire. Each woman received a single peer support encounter. Across all clinical settings, many women reported that the AP contributes by sharing her experience, offering support, listening to the patient, and providing information. Unaffected women who received peer support as part of the genetic risk assessment process perceived greater contributions from APs in terms of system navigation-such as preparing for medical appointments (p < 0.05) and during appointments (p < 0.05)-as well as in informed decision-making, notably by providing new perspectives on decision-making (p < 0.05).

conclusionsThis study confirms the value of peer support across breast cancer clinical settings, while highlighting variations in their perceived contributions according to the clinical pathway. Unaffected women in the genetic risk assessment process reported greater support in system navigation and decision-making. These findings suggest an emerging role for APs in preventive care, where their experiential knowledge and guidance can actively support patients facing complex and anticipatory health decisions.

Indexed as

Breast cancerGenetic risk assessment for familial cancerGenetic testingHealth decisionPeer supportPsychosocial issues

Identifiers

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.