Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29973334›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2018

Online Decision Support Tool for Personalized Cancer Symptom Checking in the Community (REACT): Acceptability, Feasibility, and Usability Study.

Marzena Ewa Nieroda, Artitaya Lophatananon, Brian McMillan, Li-Chia Chen, John Hughes, Rona Daniels, James Clark, Simon Rogers, Kenneth Ross Muir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Early cancer diagnosis and community pharmacies: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Can early cancer detection be improved in deprived areas by involving community pharmacists?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  6. User Experience of Symptom Checkers: A Systematic Review.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Marzena Ewa Nieroda *Division of Management Sciences and Marketing, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5462-1986
Artitaya LophatananonDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0550-4657
Brian McMillanCentre for Primary Care, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0683-3877
Li-Chia ChenCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6158-6645
John HughesIT Services, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3140-2462
Rona DanielsREACT project, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2768-5882
James ClarkGreater Manchester Cancer Vanguard Innovation, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2992-4456
Simon RogersBodey Medical Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9587-7707
Kenneth Ross MuirDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6429-988X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving cancer survival in the UK, despite recent significant gains, remains a huge challenge. This can be attributed to, at least in part, patient and diagnostic delays, when patients are unaware they are suffering from a cancerous symptom and therefore do not visit a general practitioner promptly and/or when general practitioners fail to investigate the symptom or refer promptly. To raise awareness of symptoms that may potentially be indicative of underlying cancer among members of the public a symptom-based risk assessment model (developed for medical practitioner use and currently only used by some UK general practitioners) was utilized to develop a risk assessment tool to be offered to the public in community settings. Such a tool could help individuals recognize a symptom, which may potentially indicate cancer, faster and reduce the time taken to visit to their general practitioner. In this paper we report results about the design and development of the REACT (Risk Estimation for Additional Cancer Testing) website, a tool to be used in a community setting allowing users to complete an online questionnaire and obtain personalized cancer symptom-based risk estimation.

objectiveThe objectives of this study are to evaluate (1) the acceptability of REACT among the public and health care practitioners, (2) the usability of the REACT website, (3) the presentation of personalized cancer risk on the website, and (4) potential approaches to adopt REACT into community health care services in the UK.

methodsOur research consisted of multiple stages involving members of the public (n=39) and health care practitioners (n=20) in the UK. Data were collected between June 2017 and January 2018. User views were collected by (1) the "think-aloud" approach when participants using the website were asked to talk about their perceptions and feelings in relation to the website, and (2) self-reporting of website experiences through open-ended questionnaires. Data collection and data analysis continued simultaneously, allowing for website iterations between different points of data collection.

resultsThe results demonstrate the need for such a tool. Participants suggest the best way to offer REACT is through a guided approach, with a health care practitioner (eg, pharmacist or National Health Service Health Check nurse) present during the process of risk evaluation. User feedback, which was generally consistent across members of public and health care practitioners, has been used to inform the development of the website. The most important aspects were: simplicity, ability to evaluate multiple cancers, content emphasizing an inviting community "feel," use (when possible) of layperson language in the symptom screening questionnaire, and a robust and positive approach to cancer communication relying on visual risk representation both with affected individuals and the entire population at risk.

conclusionsThis study illustrates the benefits of involving public and stakeholders in developing and implementing a simple cancer symptom check tool within community. It also offers insights and design suggestions for user-friendly interfaces of similar health care Web-based services, especially those involving personalized risk estimation.

Indexed as

cancer educationcancer riskcancer symptomsearly detection of cancerpersonalized riskREACTwebsite development

Identifiers

PMID29973334
PMCPMC6053613

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.