Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29362249›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2018

Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Juliet A Usher-Smith, Barbora Silarova, Stephen J Sharp, Katie Mills, Simon J Griffin

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population-based survey.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Juliet A Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8501-2531
Barbora SilarovaMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, UK.
Stephen J SharpMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, UK.
Katie MillsThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Simon J GriffinThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBMRC Epidemiology Unit · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21464Cancer Research UK C55650/A21464Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo provide a comprehensive review of the impact on intention to change health-related behaviours and health-related behaviours themselves, including screening uptake, of interventions incorporating information about cancer risk targeted at the general adult population.

designA systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2017. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of interventions including provision of a personal estimate of future cancer risk based on two or more non-genetic variables to adults recruited from the general population that include at least one behavioural outcome.

resultsWe included 19 studies reporting 12 outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes between studies. There is evidence that interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect intention to attend or attendance at screening (relative risk 1.00 (0.97-1.03)). There is limited evidence that they increase smoking abstinence, sun protection, adult skin self-examination and breast examination, and decrease intention to tan. However, they do not increase smoking cessation, parental child skin examination or intention to protect skin. No studies assessed changes in diet, alcohol consumption or physical activity.

conclusionsInterventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect uptake of screening, but there is limited evidence of effect on some health-related behaviours. Further research, ideally including objective measures of behaviour, is needed before cancer risk information is incorporated into routine practice for health promotion in the general population.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth Risk BehaviorsIntentionAdultDietExerciseHealth PromotionHumansNeoplasmsPatient Education as TopicPrimary PreventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmoking Cessationoncologypreventive medicinepublic health

Identifiers

PMID29362249
PMCPMC5786113
OpenAlexW2792690105

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.