CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Cancer survivorship and careHealth Policy Implementation SciencePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Implementing a PROACTive Care Pathway to Empower and Support Survivors of Breast Cancer

Open access
Franzoi, Maria Alice, Degousée, Lena, Martin, Elise, Semedo, Patricia Miguel, Aupomerol, Marion, Soldato, Davide, Di Meglio, Antonio, Chiodi, Camila +17 more·2023·JCO Oncology Practice
DOI 10.1200/op.23.00016PMC PMC10332840
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

PURPOSE: Optimal comprehensive survivorship care is insufficiently delivered. To increase patient empowerment and maximize the uptake of multidisciplinary supportive care strategies to serve all survivorship needs, we implemented a proactive survivorship care pathway for patients with early breast cancer at the end of primary treatment phase. METHODS: Pathway components included (1) a personalized survivorship care plan (SCP), (2) face-to-face survivorship education seminars and personalized consultation for supportive care referrals (Transition Day), (3) a mobile app delivering personalized education and self-management advice, and (4) decision aids for physicians focused on supportive care needs. A mixed-methods process evaluation was performed according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework including administrative data review, pathway experience survey (patient, physician, and organization), and focus group. The primary objective was patient-perceived satisfaction with the pathway (predefined progression criteria for pathway continuation ≥70%). RESULTS: Over 6 months, 321 patients were eligible for the pathway and received a SCP and 98 (30%) attended the Transition Day. Among 126 patients surveyed, 77 (66.1%) responded. 70.1% received the SCP, 51.9% attended the Transition Day, and 59.7% accessed the mobile app. 96.1% of patients were very or completely satisfied with the overall pathway, whereas perceived usefulness was 64.8% for the SCP, 90% for the Transition Day, and 65.2% for the mobile app. Pathway implementation seemed to be positively experienced by physicians and the organization. CONCLUSION: Patients were satisfied with a proactive survivorship care pathway, and the majority reported that its components were useful in supporting their needs. This study can inform the implementation of survivorship care pathways in other centers.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This pilot mixed-methods implementation study evaluated a proactive, multimodal breast cancer survivorship care pathway comprising a personalized survivorship care plan, a Transition Day, a mobile app, and physician decision aids. Patients who received the full pathway reported high satisfaction (96.1% very or completely satisfied), although reach was moderate (30% attended the Transition Day and 59.7% accessed the mobile app).

Key findings

  • Over 6 months, 321 eligible patients received a survivorship care plan and 98 (30%) attended the Transition Day; 153 seminars were delivered during 17 Transition Days, with intervention fidelity maintained in 96% of seminars.
  • Among 126 patients surveyed, 77 responded; 26 (33.8%) participated in the full pathway, and 25 of those (96.1%) were very or completely satisfied. Perceived usefulness was 64.8% for the survivorship care plan, 90% for the Transition Day, and 65.2% for the mobile app.
  • During the first 6 months, 288 needs and 72 unhealthy conditions were detected among 62 patients who participated in the personalized survivorship consultation.
  • Physicians and the organization generally viewed the pathway positively: 13 of 14 responding physicians (92.8%) agreed on the importance and utility of the survivorship care plan, and 11 (78.6%) agreed the whole pathway had a positive impact in clinics; among 13 organizational responders, 11 (84.6%) expected to continue their activities in the pathway, while 6 (46.1%) reported increased workload and disturbance of the general routine.

Methods

  • Single-institution pilot implementation of a proactive survivorship care pathway for patients with early breast cancer (stages I-III) who had completed primary treatment, evaluated with a mixed-methods process evaluation guided by the RE-AIM framework.
  • Data sources included administrative data review, an online Pathway Experience Survey at patient, physician, and organization levels, and focus groups with 17 patients who tested the mobile app; the primary objective was patient-perceived satisfaction with the pathway, with a predefined progression criterion of ≥70% very or completely satisfied.
  • Quantitative data were summarized as means and standard deviations or frequencies and percentages; qualitative data were transcribed and analyzed thematically using NVivo version 12.0.

Limitations

  • The paper states limitations including small sample size, single-institution experience, and a high proportion of highly educated participants; it also notes that survey responders mainly included patients with high health literacy, while vulnerable patients may have limited access to digital devices.
  • The paper states that effectiveness of the pathway on breast cancer outcomes was not formally evaluated in this study.
  • Evident from the text: reach was moderate (30% attended the Transition Day; 59.7% accessed the mobile app), physician survey response was 51.8%, and the abstract and Results report different response percentages for the patient survey (66.1% vs 61.1%).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/op.23.00016

Cites

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 49 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    From the 40 patients who attended the Transition Day, 37 (92.5%) agreed or completely agreed that the seminars were easy to understand.

    “From the 40 patients who attended the Transition Day, 37 (92.5%) agreed or completely agreed that the seminars were easy to understand”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    The survey responders mainly included highly educated patients with high health literacy levels.

    “our survey responders mainly included highly educated patients with high health literacy levels.36,37”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Eleven physicians (78.6%) agreed that the whole pathway had a positive impact in clinics.

    “Eleven physicians (78.6%) agreed that the whole pathway had a positive impact in clinics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Among the 46 mobile app users, 44 (73.9%) agreed or completely agreed that it was easy to use and understand.

    “Among the 46 mobile app users, 44 (73.9%) agreed or completely agreed that it was easy to use and understand”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Twelve physicians (85.7%) agreed or completely agreed on the importance and utility of decision aids.

    “Thirteen physicians (92.8%) agreed or completely agreed on the importance and utility of the SCP, 12 (85.7%) for decision aids, 13 (92.8%) for the themes explored in the Transition Day, and 12 (85.7%) for the content of the mobile app.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Perceived usefulness was 64.8% for the SCP, 90% for the Transition Day, and 65.2% for the mobile app.

    “perceived usefulness was 64.8% for the SCP, 90% for the Transition Day, and 65.2% for the mobile app.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Patient satisfaction and perceived usefulness are valid indicators of the pathway's success.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Among the 17 members of the Multidisciplinary Implementation Team, 13 (76.5%) responded to the survey.

    “Among the 17 members of the Multidisciplinary Implementation Team, 13 (76.5%) responded to the survey.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Seven patients (9.1%) reported that they were not invited to attend the Transition Day and 18 (23.4%) did not receive information on how to access the mobile app.

    “seven patients (9.1%) reported that they were not invited to attend the Transition Day and 18 (23.4%) did not receive information on how to access the mobile app.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Twenty-six (33.8%) patients who answered the survey participated in the full pathway experience (SCP, Transition Day, and mobile app), with 25 patients (96.1%) reporting to be completely satisfied or very satisfied.

    “Twenty-six (33.8%) patients who answered the survey participated in the full pathway experience (SCP, Transition Day, and mobile app), with 25 patients (96.1%) reporting to be completely satisfied or very satisfied.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Organizational respondents indicated a high level of satisfaction with the work performed in the pathway, full agreement that the patients valued their work, that the pathway was a result of a team effort, and that they felt comfortable performing their work in the pathway.

    “Their responses indicated a high level of satisfaction with the work performed in the pathway, full agreement that the patients valued their work, that the pathway was a result of a team effort, and that they felt comfortable performing their work in the pathway.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Among 126 patients surveyed, 77 responded.

    “Among 126 patients surveyed, 77 (66.1%) responded”
    • Also stated in: § Patient Pathway Experience Survey · plain
      “Among the 126 patients surveyed, 77 (61.1%) responded”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among survey respondents, 70.1% received the SCP, 51.9% attended the Transition Day, and 59.7% accessed the mobile app.

    “70.1% received the SCP, 51.9% attended the Transition Day, and 59.7% accessed the mobile app.”
    • Also stated in: § Patient Pathway Experience Survey · plain
      “54 (70.1%) received the SCP, 40 (51.9%) attended the Transition Day, and 46 (59.7%) accessed the mobile app.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    A positive organizational experience was observed.

    “Although a positive organizational experience was observed”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Tracked reasons for refusals to attend the Transition Day included lack of interest (56%), distance constraints (21%), time constraints (10%), language barrier (7%), and mobility constraints (6%).

    “Tracked reasons for refusals to attend the Transition Day included lack of interest (56%), distance constraints (21%), time constraints (10%), language barrier (7%), and mobility constraints (6%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Among the 27 oncologists involved in BC care, 14 (51.8%) replied to the survey.

    “Among the 27 oncologists involved in BC care, 14 (51.8%) replied to the survey.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Pathway implementation seemed to be positively experienced by physicians and the organization.

    “Pathway implementation seemed to be positively experienced by physicians and the organization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    A total of 153 seminars were delivered during 17 Transition Days.

    “A total of 153 seminars were delivered during 17 Transition Days.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most patients (57%) attended the Transition Day less than 2 months after the end of their primary treatment, 10% between 2 and 2.9 months, and 23% more than 3 months.

    “Most patients (57%) attended the Transition Day <2 months after the end of their primary treatment, 10% between 2 and 2.9 months, and 23% more than 3 months.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The main themes emerging from the free-text responses were feeling of having their needs addressed, feeling of not being abandoned, and satisfaction with the care team; negative experiences included need for improvement in intervention delivery and need for continuous care.

    “The main themes emerging from the free-text responses were (1) feeling of having their needs addressed, (2) feeling of not being abandoned, and (3) satisfaction with the care team. For negative experiences, the emerging themes detected were (1) need for improvement in intervention delivery and (2) need for a continuous care (Supplementary Table 3, Data Supplement).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The pathway could be delivered in a very early post-treatment survivorship phase (<3 months after the end of treatment).

    “although we could deliver our pathway in a very early post-treatment survivorship phase (<3 months after the end of treatment)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    This study revealed the promising acceptability and perceived usefulness of the pilot version of the mobile app.

    “This study revealed the promising acceptability and perceived usefulness of the pilot version of our mobile app and highlighted suggestions for increasing its adoption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    The implementation seemed to be well-perceived by physicians and the organization.

    “The implementation seemed to be well-perceived by physicians and the organization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The pathway is acceptable and perceived as useful for patients starting the post-treatment survivorship phase.

    “Our findings suggest that the pathway is acceptable and perceived as useful for patients starting the post-treatment survivorship phase, but ensuring reach is challenging.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Patients were satisfied with a proactive survivorship care pathway, and the majority reported that its components were useful in supporting their needs.

    “Patients were satisfied with a proactive survivorship care pathway, and the majority reported that its components were useful in supporting their needs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The patients who responded to the survey are representative of all patients eligible for the pathway.
    • Rests on an assumption: Patient satisfaction and perceived usefulness are valid indicators of the pathway's success.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Implementation challenges for comprehensive survivorship care include lack of health care professional awareness and training, prioritization of survivorship, organizational barriers such as dedicated time slots, multidisciplinary assessment, referral networks, and reimbursement issues.

    “This may be related to implementation challenges such as lack of health care professional awareness and training and prioritization of survivorship, organizational barriers including the need for dedicated time slots in clinics to allow for multidisciplinary assessment and management involving a range of subspecialty professionals and supportive care experts, articulation with appropriate referral”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [15] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [16] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    A minimum of 50 answers to the overall survey were prespecified as needed to provide an initial assessment of patient experience/satisfaction.

    “a minimum of 50 answers to the overall survey were prespecified as needed to provide an initial assessment of patient experience/satisfaction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    According to the RE-AIM evaluation, during this pilot process evaluation, the pathway presented a moderate reach, with moderate to high acceptance rates.

    “According to the RE-AIM evaluation,21 during this pilot process evaluation, our pathway presented a moderate reach, with moderate to high acceptance rates.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The patients who responded to the survey are representative of all patients eligible for the pathway.
    • Rests on an assumption: Patient satisfaction and perceived usefulness are valid indicators of the pathway's success.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Pathway progression criteria were defined as at least 70% of the patients receiving the entire pathway reporting to be very satisfied or completely satisfied.

    “Pathway progression criteria were defined as at least 70% of the patients receiving the entire pathway reporting to be very satisfied or completely satisfied.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    This exercise helped identify gaps in institutional supportive care resources and where specific recruitment or externalization of care was needed.

    “This exercise also helped us identify gaps in institutional supportive care resources and where specific recruitment or externalization of care was needed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Focus groups were moderated by a trained sociologist unknown to the research participants and were conducted until thematic saturation was reached.

    “The focus groups were moderated by a trained sociologist unknown to the research participants and were conducted until thematic saturation was reached.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Optimal comprehensive survivorship care delivery needs to go beyond screening of recurrences and new malignancies and include health promotion, identification and management of physical and psychosocial needs, and proper attention to concomitant chronic health conditions.

    “It is now consensual that optimal comprehensive survivorship care delivery needs to go beyond screening of recurrences and new malignancies and include health promotion, identification and management of physical and psychosocial needs, and proper attention to concomitant chronic health conditions.8,10-12”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [8] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [11] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Owing to a temporary unavailability of physical therapists, six practical seminars of physical activity were replaced by a practice of mindfulness delivered by a trained psychologist, but educational information on the benefits of physical activity was still delivered in all Transition Days.

    “owing to a temporary unavailability of physical therapists, six practical seminars of physical activity were replaced by a practice of mindfulness delivered by a trained psychologist. Nevertheless, educational information on the benefits of physical activity to survivors of BC was still delivered in all Transition Days.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    Our workflow highlights the advantages of leveraging team medicine to cocreate a purposeful, evidence-based, and deliverable pathway.

    “Our workflow highlights the advantages of leveraging team medicine34 to cocreate a purposeful, evidence-based, and deliverable pathway.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] Alfano CM, 2022, Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    No written informed consent was required; all participants received a participation informative form explaining the study scope and detailed aspects regarding voluntary participation, data rights, and data protection.

    “No written informed consent was required; nevertheless, all participants received a participation informative form explaining the study scope and detailed aspects regarding voluntary participation, data rights, and data protection.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was approved by the Institutional Scientific Committee and registered in the French Health Data Hub (No. F20211025144254).

    “This study was approved by the Institutional Scientific Committee and registered in the French Health Data Hub (No. F20211025144254).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Previous literature has demonstrated that even robust survivorship programs face challenges and implementation struggles.

    “previous literature has demonstrated that even robust survivorship programs face challenges and implementation struggles.35”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The creation of new care pathway delivery methods and provision of novel technologies and infrastructures to support self-management have been flagged as research priorities in survivorship care.

    “The creation of new care pathway delivery methods and provision of novel technologies and infrastructures to support self-management have been flagged as research priorities in survivorship care.9,48”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [9] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [48] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study had a proportion of highly educated participants.

    “Limitations should be acknowledged, including the small sample size, single-institution experience, and proportion of highly educated participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    A more comprehensive approach to survivorship care delivery is needed.

    “a previous systematic review of 24 articles comprising 11 nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies concluded that the delivery of a SCP alone is unlikely to achieve the desired benefits, and a more comprehensive approach to survivorship care delivery is needed.43,44”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [43] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [44] source

      Not checked in the free run.

34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The patients who responded to the survey are representative of all patients eligible for the pathway.

    “Among the 126 patients surveyed, 77 (61.1%) responded”
    “96.1% of patients were very or completely satisfied with the overall pathway”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Patient satisfaction and perceived usefulness are valid indicators of the pathway's success.

    “The primary study outcome was patient satisfaction and perceived usefulness of the proactive pathway, as assessed in the Patient Pathway Experience Survey.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In prior qualitative studies, patients revealed high satisfaction with the content, design, and usability of our mobile app including the features previously mentioned.

    “In prior qualitative studies, patients revealed high satisfaction with the content, design, and usability of our mobile app including the features previously mentioned.33, 34, 35”

    From Implementation of a remote symptom monitoring pathway in oncology care: analysis of real-world experience across 33 cancer centres in France and Belgium (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results > Focus Groups section reports that patients who tested the app agreed it was acceptable and useful. The Results > Patient Pathway Experience Survey also reports that most app users found it easy to use and understand. Neither section reports high patient satisfaction specifically with the app’s content and design or with the unspecified features mentioned in the citing sentence; the reported high satisfaction concerns the overall care pathway. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Abstract overstates the survey response rate

    Minor

    The abstract reports 77 responses among 126 patients as 66.1%, but 77 ÷ 126 is 61.1%. The results section gives the correct percentage.

    Reported 66.1 · recomputed 61.111111

  • Mobile app ease-of-use percentage does not match its count

    Minor

    The reported 44 of 46 mobile app users is 95.7%, not 73.9%.

    Reported 73.9 · recomputed 95.652174

  • Discussion gives a different rate of reported work-routine disturbances

    Minor

    The results say six of 13 organizational survey respondents (46.1%) reported disturbances, whereas the discussion says 41% of the implementation team did.

3 of 3

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 63 · Cited by 18

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2005, From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition
  2. Brauer ER, J Cancer Surviv
  3. Leske M, 2022, J Cancer Surviv, 1
  4. Alfano CM, 2022, Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book, 42, 1

Authors
Franzoi, M. A., Degousée, L., Martin, E., Semedo, P. M., Aupomerol, M., Soldato, D., Di Meglio, A., Chiodi, C., Barbier, A., Chaouachi, H., Renvoisé, N., Boinon, D., Fasse, L., Ribeiro, J., Le-Provost, J. B., Arvis, J., Lazorthes, C., di Palma, M., de Jesus, A., Raynard, B., Pagès, A., Delaloge, S., Pistilli, B., Scotté, F., & Vaz-Luis, I.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Breast Oncology Unit, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
  • Cancer Survivorship Group, INSERM Unit 981, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
  • Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal
  • Institut Gustave Roussy (FR)
  • Resilience Care, Paris, France
  • Supportive Care and Patient Pathway Department, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
  • Patient Committee, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
Corresponding author
Franzoi, Maria Alice
ORCID
Venue
JCO Oncology Practice
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2023-06
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
353-361
ISSN
  • 2688-1527 (ISSN-L)
  • 2688-1535
DOI
10.1200/op.23.00016
PMC
PMC10332840
OpenAlex
W4380301711
Cited by
18
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • JCO Oncology Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Conquer Cancer Foundation
  • Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  • Institut Gustave-Roussy
  • Fondation Gustave Roussy
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
breast cancer survivorship care, early breast cancer, patient empowerment, supportive care, mobile health apps, decision aids, patient satisfaction, pathway implementation
MeSH terms
Survivorship, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Patient Satisfaction, Survivors, Critical Pathways

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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