Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27754937›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical screening2017

Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services.

Stephen W Duffy, Jonathan P Myles, Roberta Maroni, Abeera Mohammad

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical screening, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The Use of First-Void Urine to Screen Women Aged 60-79 for HPV in the UK: The Catch-Up Screen Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen W DuffyCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Jonathan P MylesCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Roberta MaroniCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Abeera MohammadCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective Screening participation is spread differently across populations, according to factors such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status. We here review the current evidence on effects of interventions to improve cancer screening participation, focussing in particular on effects in underserved populations. Methods We selected studies to review based on their characteristics: focussing on population screening programmes, showing a quantitative estimate of the effect of the intervention, and published since 1990. To determine eligibility for our purposes, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search and expanded this until the search yielded eligible papers on title review which were less than 1% of the total. We classified the eligible studies by intervention type and by the cancer for which they screened, while looking to identify effects in any inequality dimension. Results The 68 papers included in our review reported on 71 intervention studies. Of the interventions, 58 had significant positive effects on increasing participation, with increase rates of the order of 2%-20% (in absolute terms). Conclusions Across different countries and health systems, a number of interventions were found more consistently to improve participation in cancer screening, including in underserved populations: pre-screening reminders, general practitioner endorsement, more personalized reminders for non-participants, and more acceptable screening tests in bowel and cervical screening.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEthnicityFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRegistriesSwedenBreast cancercancer screeningcervical cancercolorectal cancerethnicityinterventionparticipationreminderreviewsocioeconomic statusuptake

Identifiers

PMID27754937
PMCPMC5542134
OpenAlexW2533335609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.