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.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Perceptions of simulated artificial intelligence in medical consultations: associations with stress, memory, and perceived credibility.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Perceptions of the Acceptability of Community-Based Breast Cancer Risk Assessment among Underserved Latinas in Maricopa County, Arizona.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Patients' experiences of, and psychological responses to, surveillance for pulmonary nodules detected through lung cancer screening.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Communication of Positive Lung Cancer Screening Findings and Receipt of Recommended Follow-up Care.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Effect of social media interventions on the education and communication among patients with cancer: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Response to "My mom got diagnosed with cancer through the MyChart app".Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Standardized Workflows Improve Colonoscopy Follow-Up After Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Tests in a Safety-Net System.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- The introduction of risk stratified screening into the NHS breast screening Programme: views from British-Pakistani women.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.