ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009
Uptake in cancer screening programmes: a priority in cancer control.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Public Preferences for Emerging Cancer Screening Modalities: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Evidence of cancer: a systematic review of metabolomics in extracellular vesicles for cancer biomarker detection.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening uptake among Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic women in the United Kingdom: evidence from a mixed-methods systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022Pooled it
- A Model-Based Meta-Analysis of Willingness to Participate in Cancer Screening.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic screening for the detection of atrial fibrillation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening - a randomised controlled trial.British journal of cancer · 2011Trial
- How has Acceptability Been Defined and Measured in Cancer Screening Research? A Scoping Review.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Ten Recommendations for Modelling Cost Effectiveness of Screening: Perspectives of an International Stakeholder Group.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- 'We know what the barriers are, but nothing changes' - Professional perspectives on promoting breast cancer screening initiatives for ethnic minority women.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Navigating the completing cancer treatment incentive in Malaysia: patient insights and implementation challenges.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- The role of vaccine literacy and health literacy in the health prevention decision-making process.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Article
- Age and cancer type: associations with increased odds of receiving a late diagnosis in people with advanced cancer.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Bowel cancer knowledge gaps evident among Irish residents: results of a national questionnaire survey.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
- Concurrent participation in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes in Denmark: A nationwide registry-based study.Preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Increasing the uptake in a general practice prostate cancer screening programme.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- Predicting the risk of cancer in adults using supervised machine learning: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Prostate Cancer Screening with PSA: Ten Years' Experience of Population Based Early Prostate Cancer Detection Programme in Lithuania.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- How narratives influence colorectal cancer screening decision making and uptake: A realist review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achieving adequate levels of uptake in cancer screening requires a variety of approaches that need to be shaped by the characteristics of both the screening programme and the target population. Strategies to improve uptake typically produce only incremental increases. Accordingly, approaches that combine behavioural, organisational and other strategies are most likely to succeed. In conjunction with a focus on uptake, providers of screening services need to promote informed decision making among invitees. Addressing inequalities in uptake must remain a priority for screening programmes. Evidence informing strategies targeting low-uptake groups is scarce, and more research is needed in this area. Cancer screening has the potential to make a major contribution to early diagnosis initiatives in the United Kingdom, and will best be achieved through uptake strategies that emphasise wide coverage, informed choice and equitable distribution of cancer screening services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.