Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30666286›Full record

ReviewPreventive medicine reports2019

Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences.

Sian Williamson, Jacoby Patterson, Rebecca Crosby, Rebecca Johnson, Harbinder Sandhu, Samantha Johnson, Jacquie Jenkins, Margaret Casey, Olive Kearins, Sian Taylor-Phillips

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Preventive medicine reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Response to "My mom got diagnosed with cancer through the MyChart app".Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Communicating cancer risk in the primary care consultation when using a cancer risk assessment tool: Qualitative study with service users and practitioners.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Sian WilliamsonUniversity of Warwick, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Jacoby PattersonWarwick Medical School, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Rebecca CrosbyUniversity of Warwick, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Rebecca JohnsonSenior Lecturer in Public Health Coventry University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Harbinder SandhuUniversity of Warwick, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Samantha JohnsonUniversity of Warwick, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Jacquie JenkinsPublic Health England, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Margaret CaseyRoyal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Olive KearinsPublic Health England, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Sian Taylor-PhillipsUniversity of Warwick, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2016-09-018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attending and receiving a result from screening can be an anxious process. Using an appropriate method to deliver screening results could improve communication and reduce negative outcomes for screening attendees. Screening programmes are increasingly communicating results by letter or telephone rather than in-person. We investigated the impact of communication methods on attendees. We systematically reviewed the literature on the communication methods used to deliver results in cancer screening programmes for women, focusing on screening attendee anxiety, understanding of results and preferences for results communication. We included qualitative and quantitative research. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Embase. Results were analysed using framework synthesis. 10,558 papers were identified with seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Several key ideas emerged from the synthesis including speed, accuracy of results, visual support, ability to ask questions, privacy of results location and managing expectations. Verbal communication methods (telephone and in-person) were preferred and facilitated greater understanding than written methods, although there was considerable variability in attendee preferences. Findings for anxiety were mixed, with no clear consensus on which method of communication might minimise attendee anxiety. The low number of identified studies and generally low quality evidence suggest we do not know the most appropriate communication methods in the delivery of cancer screening results. More research is needed to directly compare methods of results communication, focusing on what impact each method may have on screening attendees.

Indexed as

CommunicationMass screeningMixed methodsNHSBSP, National Health Service Breast Screening ProgrammePsychologyReview

Identifiers

PMID30666286
PMCPMC6330510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.