Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32532766›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2020

Effect of different communication strategies about stopping cancer screening on screening intention and cancer anxiety: a randomised online trial of older adults in Australia.

Jenna Smith, Rachael H Dodd, Jolyn Hersch, Erin Cvejic, Kirsten McCaffery, Jesse Jansen

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Women's experiences of age-related discontinuation from mammography screening: A qualitative interview study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jenna SmithSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0480-8125
Rachael H DoddSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8080-6359
Jolyn HerschSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5225-6639
Erin CvejicSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6043-6071
Kirsten McCafferySchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jesse JansenSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia jesse.jansen@sydney.edu.au.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess different strategies for communicating to older adults about stopping cancer screening.

design4 (recommendation statement about stopping screening)×(2; time) online survey-based randomised controlled trial.

settingAustralia.

participants271 English-speaking participants, aged 65-90, screened for breast/prostate cancer at least once in past decade.

interventionsTime 1: participants read a scenario in which their general practitioner (GP) informed them about the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening, followed by double-blinded randomisation to one of four recommendation statements to stop screening: control ('this screening test would harm you more than benefit you'), health status ('your other health issues should take priority'), life expectancy framed positively ('this test would not help you live longer') and negatively ('you may not live long enough to benefit'). Time 2: in a follow-up scenario, the GP explained why guidelines changed over time (anchoring bias intervention). MEASURES: Primary outcomes: screening intention and cancer anxiety (10-point scale, higher=greater intention/anxiety), measured at both time points. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: trust (in their GP, the information provided, the Australian healthcare system), decisional conflict and knowledge of the information presented.

results271 participants' responses analysed. No main effects were found. However, screening intention was lower for the negatively framed life expectancy versus health status statement (6.0 vs 7.1, mean difference (MD)=1.1, p=0.049, 95% CI 0.0 to 2.2) in post hoc analyses. Cancer anxiety was lower for the negatively versus positively framed life expectancy statement (4.8 vs 5.8, MD=1.0, p=0.025, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.9). The anchoring bias intervention reduced screening intention (MD=0.8, p=0.044, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0) and cancer anxiety (MD=0.3, p=0.002, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) across all conditions.

conclusionOlder adults may reduce their screening intention without reporting increased cancer anxiety when clinicians use a more confronting strategy communicating they may not live long enough to benefit and add an explicit explanation why the recommendation has changed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001306202; Results).

Indexed as

AnxietyIntentionPhysician-Patient RelationsAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaDecision MakingDouble-Blind MethodEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyMaleMass ScreeningTrustgeriatric medicineinternal medicinepreventive medicinepublic health

Identifiers

PMID32532766
PMCPMC7295415
OpenAlexW3034654001

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.