Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30593552›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries.

Odette Wegwarth, Martin Widschwendter, David Cibula, Karin Sundström, Rosalba Portuesi, Ines Lein, Felix G Rebitschek, FORECEE (4C) consortium

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
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 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Knowledge of High School Students About Cancers of the Genital System.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Odette WegwarthCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0885-2673
Martin WidschwendterDepartment of Women's Cancer, University College London, London, UK.
David CibulaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University Prague (Czech Republic), Prague, UK.
Karin SundströmDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rosalba PortuesiUnit of Gynecology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Ines LeinHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Felix G RebitschekHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
FORECEE (4C) consortium
Max Planck Institute for Human Development · DECharles University · CZIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITKarolinska University Hospital · SEUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesInformed decisions about cancer screening require accurate knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening. This study investigates: (1) European women's knowledge of their risk of developing breast, ovarian, cervical or endometrial cancer, (2) their knowledge about mammography screening and (3) whether an evidence-based leaflet improves their knowledge.

designCross-sectional online intervention survey.

settingNational samples from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Italy and Sweden)-drawn from the Harris Interactive and the Toluna panel, respectively, in January 2017-were queried on their knowledge of age-specific risks of developing breast, cervical, ovarian or endometrial cancer within the next 10 years and of mammography screening before and after intervention.

participantsOf 3629 women (inclusion criteria: age 40-75 years) invited, 2092 responded and 1675 completed the survey (response rate: 61.4%).

interventionEvidence-based leaflet summarising information on age-adjusted female cancer risks, mammography and aspects of cancer prevention. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of women (1) accurately estimating their risk of four female cancers, (2) holding correct assumptions of mammography screening and (3) changing their estimations and assumptions after exposure to leaflet.

findingsAcross countries, 59.2% (95% CI 56.8% to 61.6%) to 91.8% (95% CI 90.3% to 93.0%) overestimated their female cancer risks 7-33 fold (medians

conclusionA considerable number of women in five European countries may not possess the prerequisites for an informed choice on cancer screening. Evidence-based information in patient leaflets can improve this situation.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesCzech RepublicDecision MakingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleGermanyHumansInternationalityItalybreast cancergynecological cancerspatient educationrisk literacy

Identifiers

PMID30593552
PMCPMC6318519
OpenAlexW2906847772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.