ArticleEuropean journal of public health2025
Basing healthcare decisions on value: patient-reported outcomes for patients diagnosed with breast cancer in a European cohort.
Article in European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bringing the value equation into play in value-based healthcare.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most-cited articles on tissue expander use in breast reconstruction: insights from CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix.Gland surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Improvements in breast cancer survival rate have been achieved through a variety of multimodal therapeutic approaches, which play a key role in the patients' healthcare pathway and their Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) from a Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) perspective. This paper analyses differences in PROs of patients diagnosed with breast cancer according to their healthcare pathway. A cohort of 690 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2018 and 2020 at six European sites was used. PROs were assessed at baseline and 6 months using the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measures standard set. Archetypes defined by patient characteristics and treatment trajectories served as the basis for comparison. Multivariate linear regression models were used to analyse differences in PROs across archetypes. Functional scores generally worsened over 6 months, particularly in physical functioning, whereas emotional functioning improved. Archetypes undergoing mastectomy, with or without reconstruction, showed significant decreases in body image perception and satisfaction with breasts. Pain, fatigue, and peripheral symptoms were prevalent in most archetypes, with those receiving chemotherapy reporting the greatest symptom burden. Patients with in situ carcinoma and patients undergoing conservative surgery plus radiotherapy showed minimal deterioration. The use of PROs in a real-world setting enables the identification of differences across patient archetypes based on their therapeutic pathways. This information provides valuable insights for refining patient-centred care guiding VBHC strategies in oncology, developing of personalized care solutions, and facilitating Shared-Decision Making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.