ArticlePloS one2018
Women's decision-making regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening and prevention from the perspective of international healthcare professionals.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Modeling Individual-Level Uncertainty From Missing Data in Multifactorial Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Key stakeholders' perspectives on implementation of risk-based population breast cancer screening in Australia - "We can either get on the bus or get under it".Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Experiences of Indonesian women with breast cancer underwent treatment decision-making: A qualitative study.Belitung nursing journal · 2024Article
- Canadian Healthcare Professionals' Views and Attitudes toward Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Personalized breast cancer screening with selective addition of digital breast tomosynthesis through artificial intelligence.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- The feasibility of implementing risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme: a focus group study investigating the perspectives of healthcare personnel responsible for delivery.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Perceptions of Conflicting Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Women: a Multimethod Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- The current status of risk-stratified breast screening.British journal of cancer · 2022Review
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Program: Views of Spanish Health Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of personalised breast cancer screening (DECIDO study): protocol of a single-arm proof-of-concept trial.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Risk stratified breast cancer screening: UK healthcare policy decision-making stakeholders' views on a low-risk breast screening pathway.BMC cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIncreased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors may enable a paradigm shift from one-size-fits-all breast cancer screening to screening and subsequent prevention guided by a woman's individual risk of breast cancer. Professionals will play a key role in informing women about this new personalised screening and prevention programme. Therefore, it is essential to explore professionals' views of the acceptability of this new programme, since this may affect shared decision-making.
methodsProfessionals from three European countries (the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Sweden) participated in digital concept mapping, a systematic mixed methods approach used to explore complex multidimensional constructs.
resultsAcross the three countries, professionals prioritised the following five themes which may impact decision-making from the perspective of eligible women: (1) Anxiety/worry; (2) Proactive approach; (3) Reassurance; (4) Lack of knowledge; and (5) Organisation of risk assessment and feedback. Furthermore, Dutch and British professionals expressed concerns regarding the acceptability of a heterogeneous screening policy, suggesting women will question their risk feedback and assigned pathway of care. Swedish professionals emphasised the potential impact of the programme on family relations.
conclusionsThe perspectives of Dutch, British, and Swedish professionals of women's decision-making regarding personalised breast cancer screening and prevention generally appear in line with women's own views of acceptability as previously reported. This will facilitate shared decision-making. However, concerns regarding potential consequences of this new programme for screening outcomes and organisation need to be addressed, since this may affect how professionals communicate the programme to eligible women.
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.