ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021
Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population-based survey.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Public and Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Risk-Stratified Bowel Screening: A Qualitative Study Using an Info-Comic Book.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Risk-based innovations in cancer screening and diagnosis: a discrete choice experiment to explore priorities of the UK public.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Societal views on using risk-based innovations to inform cancer screening and referral policies: findings from three community juries.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Personalised colorectal cancer screening strategies: Information needs of the target population.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- The current state of genetic risk models for the development of kidney cancer: a review and validation.BJU international · 2022Review
- 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 · 2022Article
- The Costs and Benefits of Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based On Phenotypic and Genetic Risk: A Health Economic Analysis.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2021Article
- Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population-based survey.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUsing risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility has the potential to improve efficiency of screening.
objectivesTo compare the public acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different approaches to determine eligibility for screening.
designAn online population-based survey of 668 adults in the UK aged 45-79 including a series of scenarios in the context of a potential kidney cancer screening programme in which eligibility was determined by age, sex, age and sex combined, a simple risk score (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status), a complex risk score additionally incorporating family history and lifestyle, or a genetic risk score. OUTCOME MEASURES: We used multi-level ordinal logistic regression to compare acceptability and potential uptake within individuals and multivariable ordinal logistic regression differences between individuals.
resultsUsing sex, age and sex, or the simple risk score were less acceptable than age (P < .0001). All approaches were less acceptable to women than men. Over 70% were comfortable waiting until they were older if the complex risk score or genetics indicated a low risk. If told they were high risk, 85% would be more likely to take up screening. Being told they were low risk had no overall influence on uptake.
conclusionsVarying the starting age of screening based on estimated risk from models incorporating phenotypic or genetic risk factors would be acceptable to most individuals and may increase uptake. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two members of the public contributed to the development of the survey and have commented on this paper.
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.