Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34006549›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Reasons for intending to accept or decline kidney cancer screening: thematic analysis of free text from an online survey.

Charlotte Freer-Smith, Laragh Harvey-Kelly, Katie Mills, Hannah Harrison, Sabrina H Rossi, Simon J Griffin, Grant D Stewart, Juliet A Usher-Smith

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charlotte Freer-SmithSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Laragh Harvey-KellySchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Katie MillsThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Hannah HarrisonThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Sabrina H RossiDepartment of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Simon J GriffinThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Grant D StewartDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Juliet A Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK jau20@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8501-2531
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21464Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesKidney cancer has been identified as a disease for which screening might provide significant benefit for patients. The aim of this study was to understand in detail the facilitators and barriers towards uptake of a future kidney cancer screening programme, and to compare these across four proposed screening modalities.

designAn online survey including free-text responses.

settingUK

participants668 adults PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey assessed participants' self-reported intention to take-up kidney cancer screening with four different test methods (urine test, blood test, ultrasound scan and low-dose CT). We conducted thematic analysis of 2559 free-text comments made within the survey using an inductive approach.

resultsWe identified five overarching themes that influenced screening intention: 'personal health beliefs', 'practicalities', 'opinions of the test', 'attitudes towards screening' and 'cancer apprehension'. Overall, participants considered the tests presented as simple to complete and the benefits of early detection to outweigh any drawbacks to screening. Dominant facilitators and barriers varied with patterns of intention to take up screening across the four tests. Most intended to take up screening by all four tests, and for these participants, screening was seen as a positive health behaviour. A significant minority were driven by practicalities and the risks of the tests offered. A smaller proportion intended to reject all forms of screening offered, often due to fear or worry about results and unnecessary medical intervention or a general negative view of screening.

conclusionsMost individuals would accept kidney cancer screening by any of the four test options presented because of strong positive attitudes towards screening in general and the perceived simplicity of the tests. Providing information about the rationale for screening in general and the potential benefits of early detection will be important to optimise uptake among uncertain individuals.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerKidney NeoplasmsAdultHumansKidneyMass ScreeningSurveys and Questionnaireskidney tumourspreventive medicinepublic healthqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID34006549
PMCPMC8137225
OpenAlexW3162855534

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.