Methods of communicating a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to patients

Karen STRICKLAND, Susanne Cruickshank, Isabel Dosser, Catriona Kennedy

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background
The method of delivering a diagnosis of breast cancer to women has the potential to impact on their level of interpretation, patient
recall and satisfaction.
Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of different methods when used to communicate a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to women.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register on 7th September 2006, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group on 27th October 2006, MEDLINE (1966 to present), CINAHL (1982 to present), EMBASE OVID (1980 to present),
British Nursing Index (Jan 1984 to present), PsycInfo (1967 to present), Dissertation Abstracts International (2004 to 2006), Library
and Info Science Abstracts (LISA) (1969 to present), ISI Web of Knowledge (conference abstracts) and reference lists of articles.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials of women with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer receiving a diagnosis of primary
breast cancer. Trials should have used one or more of the following methods; face-to-face consultations, written information, telephone
consultation, audio or video tapes of consultation.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion in the review. Studies were to have been assessed using standardised data
extraction and quality assessment forms.
Main results
The search strategies identified 2847 citations overall. A total of 30 citations appeared relevant however there were three duplicates
which left 27 articles for further review. Articles reporting the same primary data accounted for 6 of the publications Brown 1997;
Brown 1998; Brown 1999; Brown 2000; Hack 2000; Hack 2003 which left 23 original papers to be reviewed for inclusion. Of these,
none met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was therefore not possible.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-18
Number of pages18
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Breast Neoplasms
Referral and Consultation
MEDLINE
Publications
Nursing
Communication
Neoplasms

Cite this

STRICKLAND, Karen ; Cruickshank, Susanne ; Dosser, Isabel ; Kennedy, Catriona. / Methods of communicating a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to patients. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007 ; pp. 1-18.
@article{d63ffd243a3e4ccf8b175b677d894729,
title = "Methods of communicating a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to patients",
abstract = "BackgroundThe method of delivering a diagnosis of breast cancer to women has the potential to impact on their level of interpretation, patientrecall and satisfaction.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of different methods when used to communicate a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to women.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register on 7th September 2006, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group on 27th October 2006, MEDLINE (1966 to present), CINAHL (1982 to present), EMBASE OVID (1980 to present),British Nursing Index (Jan 1984 to present), PsycInfo (1967 to present), Dissertation Abstracts International (2004 to 2006), Libraryand Info Science Abstracts (LISA) (1969 to present), ISI Web of Knowledge (conference abstracts) and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of women with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer receiving a diagnosis of primarybreast cancer. Trials should have used one or more of the following methods; face-to-face consultations, written information, telephoneconsultation, audio or video tapes of consultation.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion in the review. Studies were to have been assessed using standardised dataextraction and quality assessment forms.Main resultsThe search strategies identified 2847 citations overall. A total of 30 citations appeared relevant however there were three duplicateswhich left 27 articles for further review. Articles reporting the same primary data accounted for 6 of the publications Brown 1997;Brown 1998; Brown 1999; Brown 2000; Hack 2000; Hack 2003 which left 23 original papers to be reviewed for inclusion. Of these,none met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was therefore not possible.",
author = "Karen STRICKLAND and Susanne Cruickshank and Isabel Dosser and Catriona Kennedy",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1002/14651858.CD006011.pub2.",
language = "English",
pages = "1--18",
journal = "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
issn = "1469-493X",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",

}

Methods of communicating a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to patients. / STRICKLAND, Karen; Cruickshank, Susanne; Dosser, Isabel; Kennedy, Catriona.

In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007, p. 1-18.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methods of communicating a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to patients

AU - STRICKLAND, Karen

AU - Cruickshank, Susanne

AU - Dosser, Isabel

AU - Kennedy, Catriona

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - BackgroundThe method of delivering a diagnosis of breast cancer to women has the potential to impact on their level of interpretation, patientrecall and satisfaction.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of different methods when used to communicate a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to women.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register on 7th September 2006, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group on 27th October 2006, MEDLINE (1966 to present), CINAHL (1982 to present), EMBASE OVID (1980 to present),British Nursing Index (Jan 1984 to present), PsycInfo (1967 to present), Dissertation Abstracts International (2004 to 2006), Libraryand Info Science Abstracts (LISA) (1969 to present), ISI Web of Knowledge (conference abstracts) and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of women with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer receiving a diagnosis of primarybreast cancer. Trials should have used one or more of the following methods; face-to-face consultations, written information, telephoneconsultation, audio or video tapes of consultation.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion in the review. Studies were to have been assessed using standardised dataextraction and quality assessment forms.Main resultsThe search strategies identified 2847 citations overall. A total of 30 citations appeared relevant however there were three duplicateswhich left 27 articles for further review. Articles reporting the same primary data accounted for 6 of the publications Brown 1997;Brown 1998; Brown 1999; Brown 2000; Hack 2000; Hack 2003 which left 23 original papers to be reviewed for inclusion. Of these,none met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was therefore not possible.

AB - BackgroundThe method of delivering a diagnosis of breast cancer to women has the potential to impact on their level of interpretation, patientrecall and satisfaction.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of different methods when used to communicate a primary diagnosis of breast cancer to women.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register on 7th September 2006, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group on 27th October 2006, MEDLINE (1966 to present), CINAHL (1982 to present), EMBASE OVID (1980 to present),British Nursing Index (Jan 1984 to present), PsycInfo (1967 to present), Dissertation Abstracts International (2004 to 2006), Libraryand Info Science Abstracts (LISA) (1969 to present), ISI Web of Knowledge (conference abstracts) and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of women with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer receiving a diagnosis of primarybreast cancer. Trials should have used one or more of the following methods; face-to-face consultations, written information, telephoneconsultation, audio or video tapes of consultation.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion in the review. Studies were to have been assessed using standardised dataextraction and quality assessment forms.Main resultsThe search strategies identified 2847 citations overall. A total of 30 citations appeared relevant however there were three duplicateswhich left 27 articles for further review. Articles reporting the same primary data accounted for 6 of the publications Brown 1997;Brown 1998; Brown 1999; Brown 2000; Hack 2000; Hack 2003 which left 23 original papers to be reviewed for inclusion. Of these,none met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was therefore not possible.

U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD006011.pub2.

DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD006011.pub2.

M3 - Review article

SP - 1

EP - 18

JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

SN - 1469-493X

ER -