ArticleBMC cancer2022
Women's health behaviour change after receiving breast cancer risk estimates with tailored screening and prevention recommendations.
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- "For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Pooled it
- Acceptability of de-intensified screening for women at low risk of breast cancer: a randomised online experimental survey.BMC cancer · 2024Trial
- Psychological impact of risk-stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme: multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).British journal of cancer · 2023Trial
- A digital pathway for genetic testing in UK NHS patients with cancer: BRCA-DIRECT randomised study internal pilot.Journal of medical genetics · 2022Trial
- Bridging the gap in breast cancer screening: the role of primary care and person-centered care in a Polish regional survey.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of breast cancer genetic profiling in Egypt.Ecancermedicalscience · 2026Review
- Provider effects and racial inequities in breast cancer risk-management adoption: Findings from a community-based study of high-risk women.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
- Uptake rate, barriers, and attitudes towards mammography screening for breast cancer in Jordan.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Perceived factors influencing patient acceptance of reduced surveillance of low-risk pancreatic cysts - A Dutch focus group study.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Patients' Attitude toward Less Frequent Surveillance of Low-Risk Pancreatic Cysts: A Multicenter European Cohort Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Observational
- Window-of-opportunity trials to screen effective agents and optimize dose in breast cancer prevention.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Review
- Determinants and barriers to women's participation in breast cancer screening activities in Jordan: an in-depth study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Spousal perceptions and their role in promoting breast cancer screening: a focus group study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Targeted Screening for Cancer: Learnings and Applicability to Melanoma: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study.British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- Women's preference to apply shared decision-making in breast cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study provided women who were eligible for breast cancer screening in Greater Manchester (United Kingdom) with their 10-year risk of breast cancer, i.e., low (≤1.5%), average (1.5-4.99%), moderate (5.-7.99%) or high (≥8%). The aim of this study is to explore which factors were associated with women's uptake of screening and prevention recommendations. Additionally, we evaluated women's organisational preferences regarding tailored screening.
methodsA total of 325 women with a self-reported low (n = 60), average (n = 125), moderate (n = 80), or high (n = 60) risk completed a two-part web-based survey. The first part contained questions about personal characteristics. For the second part women were asked about uptake of early detection and preventive behaviours after breast cancer risk communication. Additional questions were posed to explore preferences regarding the organisation of risk-stratified screening and prevention. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which factors were associated with uptake of primary and secondary breast cancer preventive behaviours, stratified by breast cancer risk. Organisational preferences are presented using descriptive statistics.
resultsSelf-reported breast cancer risk predicted uptake of (a) supplemental screening and breast self-examination, (b) risk-reducing medication and (c) preventive lifestyle behaviours. Further predictors were (a) having a first degree relative with breast cancer, (b) higher age, and (c) higher body mass index (BMI). Women's organisational preferences for tailored screening emphasised a desire for more intensive screening for women at increased risk by further shortening the screening interval and moving the starting age forward.
conclusionsBreast cancer risk communication predicts the uptake of key tailored primary and secondary preventive behaviours. Effective communication of breast cancer risk information is essential to optimise the population-wide impact of tailored screening.
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.