ArticleBMJ open2017
Comparing perceived clarity of information on overdiagnosis used for breast and prostate cancer screening in England: an experimental survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why Most Australians Consider It Valuable to Find Harmless Abnormalities with Diagnostic Tests: A Mixed-Methods Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable?BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Stage-specific incidence trends of melanoma in an English region, 1996-2015: longitudinal analyses of population-based data.Melanoma research · 2020Article
- Article
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
objectives'Overdiagnosis', detection of disease that would never have caused symptoms or death, is a public health concern due to possible psychological and physical harm but little is known about how best to explain it. This study evaluated public perceptions of widely used information on the concept to identify scope for improving communication methods.
designExperimental survey carried out by a market research company via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews.
settingInterviews took place in participants' homes.
participants2111 members of the general public in England aged 18-70 years began the survey; 1616 were eligible for analysis. National representativeness was sought via demographic quota sampling.
interventionsParticipants were allocated at random to receive a brief description of overdiagnosis derived from written information used by either the NHS Breast Screening Programme or the prostate cancer screening equivalent. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was how clear the information was perceived to be (extremely/very clear vs less clear). Other measures included previous exposure to screening information, decision-making styles and demographic characteristics (eg, education). Binary logistic regression was used to assess predictors of perceived clarity.
resultsOverdiagnosis information from the BSP was more likely to be rated as more clear compared with the prostate screening equivalent (adjusted OR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.75; p=0.001). Participants were more likely to perceive the information as more clear if they had previously encountered similar information (OR: 1.77, 1.40 to 2.23; p<0.0005) or a screening leaflet (OR: 1.35, 1.04 to 1.74; p=0.024) or had a more 'rational' decision-making style (OR: 1.06, 1.02 to 1.11; p=0.009).
conclusionsOverdiagnosis information from breast screening may be a useful template for communicating the concept more generally (eg, via organised campaigns). However, this information may be less well-suited to individuals who are less inclined to consider risks and benefits during 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.