ArticleBJGP open2022
Patient and practitioner views on cancer risk discussions in primary care: a qualitative study.
Article in BJGP open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring Public, Practitioner and Policymaker Perspectives of Unhealthy Lifestyle Factors in the Context of Socioeconomic Deprivation: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is estimated that nearly 600 000 cancer cases in the UK could have been avoided in the past 5 years if people had healthier lifestyles, with the principle modifiable risk factors being smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, and inactivity. There is growing interest in the use of cancer risk information in general practice to encourage lifestyle modification.
aimTo explore the views and experiences of patients and practitioners in relation to cancer prevention and cancer risk discussions in general practice. DESIGN &
settingQualitative study among patients and practitioners in general practices in Glasgow, UK.
methodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with nine practitioners (five GPs and four practice nurses, recruited purposively from practices based on list size and deprivation status), and 13 patients (aged 30-60 years, with two or more specified comorbidities).
resultsCurrently, cancer risk discussions focus on smoking and cancer, with links between alcohol and/or obesity and cancer rarely made. There was support for the use of the personalised cancer risk tool as an additional resource in primary care. Practitioners felt practice nurses were best placed to use it. Use in planned appointments (for example, chronic disease reviews) was preferred over opportunistic use. Concerns were expressed, however, about generating anxiety, time constraints, and widening inequalities.
conclusionHealth behaviour change is complex and the provision of information alone is unlikely to have significant effects. Personalised risk tools may have a role, but important concerns about their use remain, particularly in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage.
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.