Decision regret regarding treatments among women with early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review protocol

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Introduction

Women with early-stage breast cancer (EBC) are commonly required to make treatment decisions. Decision regret regarding treatments is an adverse outcome that negatively affects women’s psychological well-being and quality of life. A systematic review will be conducted to synthesise evidence about decision regret among women regarding treatments for EBC. The study will focus on levels of decision regret, what is regretted, and the factors associated with decision regret.

Methods and analysis

A systematic review will be conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. Electronic databases, including CINAHL Complete, Embase, PubMed, Medline and Web of Science, will be searched for relevant articles published from 2000 to 2021. The reference lists of eligible studies will also be manually searched. All types of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies that report on decision regret regarding treatments among women with EBC will be included. The primary outcome of this review will be women’s levels of decision regret regarding breast cancer treatments. The secondary outcomes will include the content of their regrets, and the factors contributing to decision regret. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. Meta-analysis and thematic synthesis approaches will be used to synthesise quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. A convergent parallel approach will be used to integrate quantitative and qualitative findings.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The findings of this work will be disseminated at international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this systematic review will inform the development of decision interventions to improve the decision outcomes of breast cancer treatments.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42021260041.

Related collections

Most cited references 36

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

Hyuna Sung, Jacques Ferlay, Rebecca Siegel … (2021)

This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.

0 comments Cited 32160 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke … (2017)

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

0 comments Cited 6117 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

James Thomas, Angela Harden (2008)

Background There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies. Methods We describe thematic synthesis, outline several steps for its conduct and illustrate the process and outcome of this approach using a completed review of health promotion research. Thematic synthesis has three stages: the coding of text 'line-by-line'; the development of 'descriptive themes'; and the generation of 'analytical themes'. While the development of descriptive themes remains 'close' to the primary studies, the analytical themes represent a stage of interpretation whereby the reviewers 'go beyond' the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses. The use of computer software can facilitate this method of synthesis; detailed guidance is given on how this can be achieved. Results We used thematic synthesis to combine the studies of children's views and identified key themes to explore in the intervention studies. Most interventions were based in school and often combined learning about health benefits with 'hands-on' experience. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective. Thematic synthesis enabled us to stay 'close' to the results of the primary studies, synthesising them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses. Conclusion We compare thematic synthesis to other methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, discussing issues of context and rigour. Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.

0 comments Cited 1441 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ Open

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ Open

Journal ID (hwp): bmjopen

Journal ID (publisher-id): bmjopen

Title: BMJ Open

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )

ISSN (Electronic): 2044-6055

Publication date Collection: 2022

Publication date (Electronic): 17 March 2022

Volume: 12

Issue: 3

Electronic Location Identifier: e058425

Affiliations

[1 ]departmentSchool of Nursing and Midwifery , The University of Newcastle , Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia

[2 ]departmentDepartment of Nursing , School of Medicine, Xiamen University , Xiamen, Fujian, People's Republic of China

[3 ]departmentPresident Office , Tung Wah College , Hong Kong, People's Republic of China

Author notes

[Correspondence to ] Miss Jing Liu; jliu12@ 123456uon.edu.au

Author information

Jing Liu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3266-0690

Article

Publisher ID: bmjopen-2021-058425

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058425

PMC ID: 8932263

PubMed ID: 35301213

SO-VID: 427480e4-ad39-4a8f-bb90-18093168adc1

License:

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

History

Date received : 15 October 2021

Date accepted : 01 February 2022

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004543, China Scholarship Council;

Award ID: 201808350089

Custom metadata

special-feature unlocked

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: breast neoplasm,regret,systematic review,qualitative,meta-analysis,factors

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

Keywords: breast neoplasm, regret, systematic review, qualitative, meta-analysis, factors

Decision regret regarding treatments among women with early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review protocol

Read this article at

Abstract

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

PROSPERO registration number

Related collections

Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications

Most cited references 36

Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 165

Cited by 4

Most referenced authors 1,468