Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29162038›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2017

A qualitative study on Singaporean women's views towards breast cancer screening and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) gene testing to guide personalised screening strategies.

Xin Yi Wong, Kok Joon Chong, Janine A van Til, Hwee Lin Wee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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.

Xin Yi WongDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Block S4A Level 3, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore, 117543, Republic of Singapore.
Kok Joon ChongDepartment of Planning and Development, Regional Health System Planning Office, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Republic of Singapore.
Janine A van TilDepartment of Health Technology & Services Research, School for Management & Governance, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Hwee Lin WeeDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Block S4A Level 3, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore, 117543, Republic of Singapore. phawhl@nus.edu.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7150-1801

Funding

National Medical Research Council HSRG/13MAY006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is the top cancer by incidence and mortality in Singaporean women. Mammography is by far its best screening tool, but current recommended age and interval may not yield the most benefit. Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to improve discriminatory accuracy of breast cancer risk assessment models. This study was conducted to understand Singaporean women's views towards breast cancer screening and SNPs gene testing to guide personalised screening strategies.

methodsFocus group discussions were conducted among English-speaking women (n = 27) between 40 to 65 years old, both current and lapsed mammogram users. Women were divided into four groups based on age and mammogram usage. Discussions about breast cancer and screening experience, as well as perception and attitude towards SNPs gene testing were conducted by an experienced moderator. Women were also asked for factors that will influence their uptake of the test. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis to captured similarities and differences in views expressed.

resultsBarriers to repeat mammogram attendance include laziness to make appointment and painful and uncomfortable screening process. However, the underlying reason may be low perceived susceptibility to breast cancer. Facilitators to repeat mammogram attendance include ease of making appointment and timely reminders. Women were generally receptive towards SNPs gene testing, but required information on accuracy, cost, invasiveness, and side effects before they decide whether to go for it. Other factors include waiting time for results and frequency interval. On average, women gave a rating of 7.5 (range 5 to 10) when asked how likely they will go for the test.

conclusionAddressing concerns such as pain and discomfort during mammogram, providing timely reminders and debunking breast cancer myths can help to improve screening uptake. Women demonstrated a spectrum of responses towards a novel test like SNPs gene testing, but need more information to make an informed decision. Future public health education on predictive genetic testing should adequately address both benefits and risks. Findings from this study is used to inform a discrete choice experiment to empirically quantify women preferences and willingness-to-pay for SNPs gene testing.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPatient Acceptance of Health CarePolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrecision MedicineAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFocus GroupsGenetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchBreast cancerGenetic testingPersonalised screeningQualitativeSingle nucleotide polymorphisms

Identifiers

PMID29162038
PMCPMC5697412

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.