The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Preventive therapy is a risk reduction option for women who have an increased risk of breast cancer. The effectiveness of preventive therapy to reduce breast cancer incidence depends on adequate levels of uptake and adherence to therapy. We aimed to systematically review articles reporting uptake and adherence to therapeutic agents to prevent breast cancer among women at increased risk, and identify the psychological, clinical and demographic factors affecting these outcomes. DESIGN: Searches were carried out in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychInfo, yielding 3851 unique articles. Title, abstract and full text screening left 53 articles, and a further 4 studies were identified from reference lists, giving a total of 57. This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42014014957). RESULTS: Twenty-four articles reporting 26 studies of uptake in 21 423 women were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled uptake estimate was 16.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.6-19.0], with high heterogeneity (I(2) = 98.9%, P < 0.001). Uptake was unaffected by study location or agent, but was significantly higher in trials [25.2% (95% CI 18.3-32.2)] than in non-trial settings [8.7% (95% CI 6.8-10.9)] (P < 0.001). Factors associated with higher uptake included having an abnormal biopsy, a physician recommendation, higher objective risk, fewer side-effect or trial concerns, and older age. Adherence (day-to-day use or persistence) over the first year was adequate. However, only one study reported a persistence of ≥ 80% by 5 years. Factors associated with lower adherence included allocation to tamoxifen (versus placebo or raloxifene), depression, smoking and older age. Risk of breast cancer was discussed in all qualitative studies. CONCLUSION: Uptake of therapeutic agents for the prevention of breast cancer is low, and long-term persistence is often insufficient for women to experience the full preventive effect. Uptake is higher in trials, suggesting further work should focus on implementing preventive therapy within routine care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Interventions for enhancing medication adherence
Nieuwlaat, R., Wilczynski, N., Navarro, T., Hobson, N., Jeffery, R., Keepanasseril, A., Agoritsas, T., Mistry, N., Iorio, A., Jack, S., et al. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000011.pub4 · Cited by 2,945 · cited 1×
“Attempts to correct such beliefs have had mixed results [87 – 89], but several studies have indicated that necessity beliefs and concerns are amenable to change [90 – 92].”
Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440 · Cited by 1,363 · cited 1×
“The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) can be used to assess study quality in mixed study reviews [20].”
Pace, R., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Macaulay, A. C., Salsberg, J., Jagosh, J., & Seller, R. (2012) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002 · Cited by 1,331
Horne, R., Chapman, S. C. E., Parham, R., Freemantle, N., Forbes, A., & Cooper, V. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080633 · Cited by 1,174
Self-citationBreast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis
Forouzanfar, M. H., Foreman, K. J., Delossantos, A. M., Lozano, R., Lopez, A. D., Murray, C. J. L., & Naghavi, M. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61351-2 · Cited by 1,009
Petrie, K. J., Perry, K., Broadbent, E., & Weinman, J. (2012) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8287.2011.02033.x · Cited by 330
Cited by
Key steps for effective breast cancer prevention
Britt, K. L., Cuzick, J., & Phillips, K.-A. (2020) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-020-0266-x · Cited by 992
Self-citationDepression in cancer: The many biobehavioral pathways driving tumor progression
Bortolato, B., Hyphantis, T. N., Valpione, S., Perini, G., Maes, M., Morris, G., Kubera, M., Köhler, C. A., Fernandes, B. S., Stubbs, B., et al. (2017) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.11.004 · Cited by 375
Nelson, H. D., Fu, R., Zakher, B., Pappas, M., & McDonagh, M. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.5780 · Cited by 137
Smith, S. G., Sestak, I., Howell, A., Forbes, J., & Cuzick, J. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.71.7439 · Cited by 51
Self-citationLong-term performance of an image-based short-term risk model for breast cancer
Eriksson, M., Czene, K., Vachon, C., Conant, E. F., & Hall, P. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.22.01564 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, S. G., Sestak, I., Forster, A., Partridge, A., Side, L., Wolf, M. S., Horne, R., Wardle, J., & Cuzick, J.
- Venue
- Annals of Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 575-590
- ISSN
- 0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2195518879
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 3.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/annonc/mdv590
- The paper
- Smith, S. G., Sestak, I., Forster, A., Partridge, A., Side, L., Wolf, M. S., Horne, R., Wardle, J., & Cuzick, J. (2016). Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv590
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.