↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011396.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Máirín O'Mahony, Harry Comber, Tony Fitzgerald, Mark A Corrigan, Eileen Fitzgerald, Elizabeth A Grunfeld, Maura G Flynn, Josephine Hegarty

Abstract

Breast cancer continues to be the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women globally. Early detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer are key to better outcomes. Since many women will discover a breast cancer symptom themselves, it is important that they are breast cancer aware i.e. have the knowledge, skills and confidence to detect breast changes and present promptly to a healthcare professional. To assess the effectiveness of interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (searched 25 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 27 January 2016), MEDLINE OvidSP (2008 to 27 January 2016), Embase (Embase.com, 2008 to 27 January 2016), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 27 Feburary 2016). We also searched the reference lists of identified articles and reviews and the grey literature for conference proceedings and published abstracts. No language restriction was applied. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on interventions for raising women's breast cancer awareness i.e. knowledge of potential breast cancer symptoms/changes and the confidence to look at and feel their breasts, using any means of delivery, i.e. one-to-one/group/mass media campaign(s). Two authors selected studies, independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We reported the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) for continuous outcomes. Since it was not possible to combine data from included studies due to their heterogeneity, we present a narrative synthesis. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE methods. We included two RCTs involving 997 women: one RCT (867 women) randomised women to receive either a written booklet and usual care (intervention group 1), a written booklet and usual care plus a verbal interaction with a radiographer or research psychologist (intervention group 2) or usual care (control group); and the second RCT (130 women) randomised women to either an educational programme (three sessions of 60 to 90 minutes) or no intervention (control group). Knowledge of breast cancer symptomsIn the first study, knowledge of non-lump symptoms increased in intervention group 1 compared to the control group at two years postintervention, but not significantly (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.6; P = 0.66; 449 women; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, at two years postintervention, knowledge of symptoms increased in the intervention group 2 compared to the control group but not significantly (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.1; P = 0.11; 434 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women's awareness of breast cancer symptoms had increased one month post intervention in the educational group (MD 3.45, SD 5.11; 65 women; low-quality evidence) compared to the control group (MD -0.68, SD 5.93; 65 women; P < 0.001), where there was a decrease in awareness. Knowledge of age-related riskIn the first study, women's knowledge of age-related risk of breast cancer increased, but not significantly, in intervention group 1 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.8; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.5; P < 0.08; 447 women; moderate-quality evidence). Women's knowledge of risk increased significantly in intervention group 2 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.6 to 9.0; P < 0.001; 431 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women's perceived susceptibility (how at risk they considered themselves) to breast cancer had increased significantly one month post intervention in the educational group (MD 1.31, SD 3.57; 65 women; low-quality evidence) compared to the control group (MD -0.55, SD 3.31; 65 women; P = 0.005), where a decrease in perceived susceptibility was noted. Frequency of Breast CheckingIn the first study, no significant change was noted for intervention group 1 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.6; P = 0.54; 457 women; moderate-quality evidence). Monthly breast checking increased, but not significantly, in intervention group 2 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.9; P = 0.14; 445 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, women's breast cancer preventive behaviours increased significantly one month post intervention in the educational group (MD 1.21, SD 2.54; 65 women; low-quality evidence) compared to the control group (MD 0.15, SD 2.94; 65 women; P < 0.045). Breast Cancer AwarenessWomen's overall breast cancer awareness did not change in intervention group 1 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.6 to 5.30; P = 0.32; 435 women; moderate-quality evidence) while overall awareness increased in the intervention group 2 compared to control at two years postintervention (OR 8.1, 95% CI 2.7 to 25.0; P < 0.001; 420 women; moderate-quality evidence). In the second study, there was a significant increase in scores on the Health Belief Model (that included the constructs of awareness and perceived susceptibility) at one month postintervention in the educational group (mean 1.21, SD 2.54; 65 women) compared to the control group (mean 0.15, SD 2.94; 65 women; P = 0.045).Neither study reported outcomes relating to motivation to check their breasts, confidence to seek help, time from breast symptom discovery to presentation to a healthcare professional, intentions to seek help, quality of life, adverse effects of the interventions, stages of breast cancer, survival estimates or breast cancer mortality rates. Based on the results of two RCTs, a brief intervention has the potential to increase women's breast cancer awareness. However, findings of this review should be interpreted with caution, as GRADE assessment identified moderate-quality evidence in only one of the two studies reviewed. In addition, the included trials were heterogeneous in terms of the interventions, population studied and outcomes measured. Therefore, current evidence cannot be generalised to the wider context. Further studies including larger samples, validated outcome measures and longitudinal approaches are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 165 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 24%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 23 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 19%
Social Sciences 15 9%
Psychology 14 8%
Computer Science 6 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 26 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,235,267
of 14,574,667 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,524
of 11,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,438
of 351,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,574,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.