Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34051753›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2021

Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable?

Lorna McWilliams, Victoria G Woof, Louise S Donnelly, Anthony Howell, D Gareth Evans, David P French

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lorna McWilliamsManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. lorna.mcwilliams@manchester.ac.uk.
Victoria G WoofManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Louise S DonnellyNightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK.
Anthony HowellNightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK.
D Gareth EvansNightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK.
David P FrenchManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Breast Cancer Now 2018RP005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrials of risk estimation in breast cancer screening programmes, in order to identify women at higher risk and offer extra screening/preventive measures, are ongoing. It may also be feasible to introduce less frequent screening for women at low-risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to establish views of women at low-risk of breast cancer regarding the acceptability of extending breast screening intervals for low-risk women beyond 3 y.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were used to explore views of low-risk women, where "low-risk" was defined as less than 2% estimated 10-year risk of breast cancer aged > 46 years. Low-risk women were identified via the BC-Predict study, where following routine screening, women were given their 10-year risk of breast cancer by letter, along with additional information explaining breast cancer risk factors. To gain diversity of views, purposive sampling by ethnicity and socioeconomic background was used to recruit women. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsTwenty-three women participated in individual interviews. Three themes are reported: (1) A good opportunity to receive risk estimation, where women found it worthwhile to receive a low-risk result although some were surprised if expecting a higher risk result; (2) Multi-faceted acceptability of extended screening intervals, with reactions to less frequent screening dependent on whether women were confident in being low-risk status and current safety evidence, (3) Passive approval versus informed choice, highlighting that women found it difficult to consider choosing less frequent screening without professionals' recommendations, as they generally viewed attending breast screening as positive.

conclusionsRisk assessment and receiving a low-risk of breast cancer is acceptable although, further research is required with more diverse samples of women. Any recommendation of less frequent screening in this risk group should be evidence-based in order to be acceptable. Communication needs to be carefully developed, with a focus on ensuring informed choice, prior to trialling any extended screening recommendations in future studies.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAgedBreast NeoplasmsChoice BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsAcceptabilityBreast cancerMammographyRisk assessmentRisk communicationRisk-stratificationScreening

Identifiers

PMID34051753
PMCPMC8164783
OpenAlexW3164309025

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.