ArticleNPJ breast cancer2026
Women's preferences for breast cancer risk-reducing medications: a discrete choice experiment study.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite strong evidence that chemoprevention reduces breast cancer risk in high-risk women, uptake remains low. We hypothesized that healthy women evaluate preventive medications differently from patients and that understanding delivery preferences may inform more acceptable strategies. We conducted a discrete choice experiment with eight attributes: reduction in lifetime breast cancer risk by age 70, treatment duration, modality, frequency, medical recommendation, fertility impact, side effects, and total cost. Women aged 21-59 without prior breast cancer were recruited in Singapore. Each participant completed choice tasks under two perceived lifetime risk scenarios (30% and 80%). Preferences were analyzed using mixed logit models, with conditional relative importance and marginal willingness-to-pay estimated. Among 618 women, respondents generally preferred risk-reducing treatment over no treatment. Across risk scenarios, shorter duration, minimal fertility impact, and fewer side effects were consistently valued. Cost strongly influenced choices, although less so at higher baseline risk. Cost and side effects were the most important attributes in both scenarios. Willingness-to-pay estimates indicated strong aversion to severe side effects and long durations, and a preference for specialist over general practitioner recommendations. Preferences varied by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. No significant preference differences were observed across delivery modalities.
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.