Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30021754›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Attitudes towards a programme of risk assessment and stratified management for ovarian cancer: a focus group study of UK South Asians' perspectives.

Katie E J Hann, Nasreen Ali, Sue Gessler, Lindsay Sarah Macduff Fraser, Lucy Side, Jo Waller, Saskia C Sanderson, Anne Lanceley, PROMISE study team

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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. Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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.

Katie E J HannDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Nasreen AliInstitute for Health Research, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
Sue GesslerDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Lindsay Sarah Macduff FraserDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1086-5476
Lucy SideDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jo WallerDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Saskia C SandersonDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Anne LanceleyDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA UCL Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
PROMISE study team

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12677
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePopulation-based risk assessment, using genetic testing and the provision of appropriate risk management, could lead to prevention, early detection and improved clinical management of ovarian cancer (OC). Previous research with mostly white British participants found positive attitudes towards such a programme. The current study aimed to explore the attitudes of South Asian (SA) women and men in the UK with the aim of identifying how best to implement such a programme to minimise distress and maximise uptake.

designSemistructured qualitative focus group discussions.

settingCommunity centres across North London and Luton.

participants49 women and 13 men who identified as SA (Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi), which constitutes the largest non-European ethnic minority group in the UK.

methodsSeven community-based focus groups were held. Group discussions were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed thematically.

resultsAwareness and knowledge of OC symptoms and specific risk factors was low. The programme was acceptable to most participants and attitudes to it were generally positive. Participants' main concerns related to receiving a high-risk result following the genetic test. Younger women may be more cautious of genetic testing, screening or risk-reducing surgery due to the importance of marriage and childbearing in their SA cultures.

conclusionsA crucial first step to enable implementation of population-based genetic risk assessment and management in OC is to raise awareness of OC within SA communities. It will be important to engage with the SA community early on in programme implementation to address their specific concerns and to ensure culturally tailored decision support.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBangladeshEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFocus GroupsGenetic TestingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PromotionHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPakistangenetic testingovarian cancerrisk assessmentrisk managementrisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID30021754
PMCPMC6059306

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.