Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31146730›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Women's perception, attitudes, and intended behavior towards predictive epigenetic risk testing for female cancers in 5 European countries: a cross-sectional online survey.

Odette Wegwarth, Nora Pashayan, Martin Widschwendter, Felix G Rebitschek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  3. A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Odette WegwarthCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany. wegwarth@mpib-berlin.mpg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0885-2673
Nora PashayanDepartment of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, London, UK.
Martin WidschwendterDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Felix G RebitschekHarding Center for Risk Literacy, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Max Planck Institute for Human Development · DEUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme n.n.Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 634570
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpigenetic markers might be used for risk-stratifying cancer screening and prevention programs in the future. Although the clinical utility of consequent epigenetic tests for risk stratification is yet to be proven, successful adoption into clinical practice also requires the public's acceptance of such tests. This cross-sectional online survey study sought to learn for the first time about European women's perceptions, attitudes, and intended behavior regarding a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer (breast, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial) risks.

methods1675 women (40-75 years) from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden), drawn from online panels by the survey sampling company Harris Interactive (Germany), participated in an online survey where they first received online leaflet information on a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks and were subsequently queried by an online questionnaire on their desire to know their female cancer risks, their perception of the benefit-to-harm ratio of an epigenetic test predicting female cancer risks, reasons in favor and disfavor of taking such a test, and their intention to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks.

resultsMost women desired information on each of their female cancer risks, 56.6% (95% CI: 54.2-59.0) thought the potential benefits outweighed potential harms, and 75% (72.0-77.8) intended to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks if freely available. Results varied considerably by country with women from Germany and the Czech Republic being more reserved about this new form of testing than women from the other three European countries. The main reason cited in favor of a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks was its potential to guide healthcare strategies and lifestyle changes in the future, and in its disfavor was that it may increase cancer worry and coerce unintended lifestyle changes and healthcare interventions.

conclusionsA successful introduction of predictive epigenetic tests for cancer risks will require a balanced and transparent communication of the benefit-to-harm ratio of healthcare pathways resulting from such tests in order to curb unjustified expectations and at the same time to prevent unjustified concerns.

Indexed as

Epigenesis, GeneticHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeIntentionAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEndometrial NeoplasmsEuropeFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasmsAttitudesEuropean womenFemale cancer riskIntentionsPredictive epigenetic testing

Identifiers

PMID31146730
PMCPMC6543792
OpenAlexW2947322437

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.