ArticleBritish journal of cancer2012
Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Information Film on Informed Decision-making: A Randomized Trial.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019Trial
- The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2015Trial
- Understanding narrative effects in physical activity promotion: the influence of breast cancer survivor testimony on exercise beliefs, self-efficacy, and intention in breast cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015Trial
- Attitudes towards being offered a choice of self-sampling or clinician sampling for cervical screening: A cross-sectional survey of women taking part in a clinical validation of HPV self-collection devices.Journal of medical screening · 2025Article
- Article
- Barriers and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening in Asia.Ecancermedicalscience · 2021Review
- Article
- Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2019Article
- Fit for Cancer Treatment: a prospective feasibility study of primary care initiated prehabilitation for patients with suspected cancer.BJGP open · 2018Article
- Development of an evidence-based brief 'talking' intervention for non-responders to bowel screening for use in primary care: stakeholder interviews.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Review
- Factors influencing participation in colorectal cancer screening-a qualitative study in an ethnic and socio-economically diverse inner city population.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- Ethnic minority women prefer strong recommendations to be screened for cancer.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Common methods of measuring 'informed choice' in screening participation: Challenges and future directions.Preventive medicine reports · 2016Review
- A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey.BMC public health · 2016Article
- The Role of Patient Activation in Preferences for Shared Decision Making: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Adults.Journal of health communication · 2016Article
- Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening.Translational behavioral medicine · 2015Article
- The development and testing of a brief ('gist-based') supplementary colorectal cancer screening information leaflet.Patient education and counseling · 2013Article
- Continuing cancer screening later in life: attitudes and intentions among older adults in England.Age and ageing · 2013Article
- Gender differences in predictors of colorectal cancer screening uptake: a national cross sectional study based on the health belief model.BMC public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformed decision-making approaches to cancer screening emphasise the importance of decisions being determined by individuals' own values and preferences. However, advice from a trusted source may also contribute to autonomous decision-making. This study examined preferences regarding a recommendation from the NHS and information provision in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.
methodsIn face-to-face interviews, a population-based sample of adults across Britain (n=1964; age 50-80 years) indicated their preference between: (1) a strong recommendation to participate in CRC screening, (2) a recommendation alongside advice to make an individual decision, and (3) no recommendation but advice to make an individual decision. Other measures included trust in the NHS and preferences for information on benefits and risks.
resultsMost respondents (84%) preferred a recommendation (47% strong recommendation, 37% recommendation plus individual decision-making advice), but the majority also wanted full information on risks (77%) and benefits (78%). Men were more in favour of a recommendation than women (86% vs 81%). Trust in the NHS was high overall, but the minority who expressed low trust were less likely to want a recommendation.
conclusionMost British adults want full information on risks and benefits of screening but they also want a recommendation from an authoritative source. An 'expert' view may be an important part of autonomous health decision-making.
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.