ArticleBMC public health2016
A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Trial
- Exploring ChatGPT effectiveness in addressing direct patient queries on colorectal cancer screening.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Questionnaire survey on cervical cancer screening and HPV awareness among patients at a local cancer center in Japan.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Personalised colorectal cancer screening strategies: Information needs of the target population.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Socio-demographic correlates of cervical cancer risk factor knowledge among screening non-participants in Great Britain.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer: an online survey of GPs in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- A large proportion of fecal immunochemical test-positive participants in colorectal cancer screening is symptomatic.United European gastroenterology journal · 2018Article
- Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: Data from a national sample of British women.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2017Article
- A cross-sectional survey assessing factors associated with reading cancer screening information: previous screening behaviour, demographics and decision-making style.BMC public health · 2017Article
- The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe NHS Cancer Screening Programmes in England now operate a policy of 'informed choice' about participation in cancer screening. Engagement with written information about screening is important to facilitate informed choice, although the degree to which the screening-eligible public engages with the available information is unknown. We examined the association between reading of the standard informational booklet ('Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts') and participation in the nationally organised NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.
methodsFace-to-face interviews were conducted with 1307 adults who were age-eligible for nationally organised colorectal cancer (CRC; also called bowel cancer) in a population-based survey in England in 2014. Respondents were shown an image of 'The Facts' booklet and were asked how much of it they had read when they received their screening invitation ('none', 'a little', 'some', 'most', 'almost all', or 'all'). Logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between screening uptake status ('never' vs. 'ever') and self-reported reading of 'The Facts' booklet (dichotomised to 'none vs. 'any'), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, and occupation-based social grade.
resultsOverall, 69 % of the sample (908/1307) had participated in CRC screening at least once ('ever' screeners). One-fifth of the sample reported that they had read 'none' of 'The Facts' booklet (22 %; 287/1307), while half reported having read 'all' of it (52 %; 680/1307). Reading of the booklet was strongly differential according to screening uptake status: nearly two-thirds of 'never' screeners had read none of 'The Facts' booklet (63 %; 251/399), compared to less than one in twenty 'ever' screeners (4 %; 36/908); adjusted OR = 39.0; 95 % CI: 26.2-58.1 for reading 'none' in 'never' vs. 'ever' screeners.
conclusionsAlthough 'The Facts' booklet is intended to support informed choices about CRC screening, the majority of unscreened individuals report that they have read none of it. The degree to which public engagement with the decision-making process about cancer screening is socially unequal must be better understood so that comprehensive and equitable public communication strategies can be developed.
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.