Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35475542›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study.

Mbasan Jallow, Georgia Black, Sandra van Os, David R Baldwin, Kate E Brain, Michael Donnelly, Samuel M Janes, Clara Kurtidu, Grace McCutchan, Kathryn A Robb and 2 more

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

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Mbasan JallowResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Georgia BlackDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Sandra van OsDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
David R BaldwinDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital, Nottingham, UK.
Kate E BrainDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Michael DonnellyCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Samuel M JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Clara KurtiduInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Grace McCutchanDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Kathryn A RobbInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Mamta RuparelLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Samantha L QuaifeWolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4918-6382
University College London · GBCardiff University · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBQueen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 30770Cancer Research UK C50664/A24460Cancer Research UK C50664/A30770
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake.

methodsThis study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition.

resultsThe leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand.

conclusionThe TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealth CommunicationHealth LiteracyLung NeoplasmsNational Health ProgramsPamphletsAdultComprehensionEnglandHumansLungMass ScreeningState Medicinedecision aiddecision-makinginformed choicelung cancer screening

Identifiers

PMID35475542
PMCPMC9327842
OpenAlexW4225004609

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.