Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2003
Cluster-randomised trial of risk communication to enhance informed uptake of cervical screening.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Patient education and counseling · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Cancer risk assessment tools in primary care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Annals of family medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- A systematic review of information in decision aids.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2007Pooled it
- Effects of numerical information on intention to participate in cervical screening among women offered HPV vaccination: a randomised study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2016Trial
- Patients' Attitude toward Less Frequent Surveillance of Low-Risk Pancreatic Cysts: A Multicenter European Cohort Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Observational
- Talking about cancer: Patient responses to raising awareness of oral cancer in primary dental care.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2023Article
- Risk accuracy of type 2 diabetes in middle aged adults: Associations with sociodemographic, clinical, psychological and behavioural factors.Patient education and counseling · 2018Article
- The CRISP colorectal cancer risk prediction tool: an exploratory study using simulated consultations in Australian primary care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Enhancing participation to health screening campaigns by group interactions.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Cluster randomized trials of cancer screening interventions: are appropriate statistical methods being used?Contemporary clinical trials · 2011Article
- Barriers to asymptomatic screening and other STD services for adolescents and young adults: focus group discussions.BMC public health · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen overestimate both population and individual risk of cervical cancer. This may contribute to the recognised excess screening frequency for low-risk women.
aimTo investigate whether an individualized risk communication package could affect stated preferences for screening interval and actual screening behaviour.
designPragmatic, practice-based cluster randomised controlled trial.
settingTwenty-nine practices (15 intervention, 14 control) in North Wales recruited 1890 women attending for cervical smears.
methodA risk communication package containing visual material was compared with normal practice. Practice nurses received training in its delivery. The short-term primary outcome was stated preference for screening interval; the long-term primary outcome was actual screening behaviour.
resultsIn the short term, intervention arm women were significantly less likely to prefer a shorter than recommended interval (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41 to 0.64; P < 0.0001). At the five-year follow-up, fewer women in the intervention arm had attended for screening sooner than their recommended recall. The magnitude of difference in excess screening interval preference and behaviour was similar, but behaviour had a wider confidence interval and a marginally non-significant P-value (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.03; P = 0.063). Better knowledge and more accurate risk perceptions were demonstrated, with an improvement in measures of anxiety. The extra cost per woman receiving the intervention was 6 Pounds.
conclusionsWomen's perception of risk contributes to determining screening intervals in addition to practice factors. Simple risk information delivered in primary care affected women's stated preferences for tests. The impact on actual screening behaviour was more equivocal. Overall, the intervention showed a substantial benefit and any disbenefit can be ruled out. This approach to providing risk information could, at low cost, benefit other screening programmes and may relieve anxiety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14601338PMC1314676What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.