Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35526275›Full record

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

A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.

Rebecca A Dennison, Rachel A Boscott, Rae Thomas, Simon J Griffin, Hannah Harrison, Stephen D John, Sowmiya A Moorthie, Stephen Morris, Sabrina H Rossi, Grant D Stewart and 2 more

Abstract read
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 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Health inequalities in precision medicine: A systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026
    Review
  5. Public and Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Risk-Stratified Bowel Screening: A Qualitative Study Using an Info-Comic Book.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.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.

Rebecca A DennisonPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0847-0723
Rachel A BoscottSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Rae ThomasInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2165-5917
Simon J GriffinPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2157-4797
Hannah HarrisonPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8952-852X
Stephen D JohnDepartment of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1062-0188
Sowmiya A MoorthiePHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7790-2630
Stephen MorrisPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5828-3563
Sabrina H RossiDepartment of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7048-7158
Grant D StewartDepartment of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3188-9140
Chloe V ThomasSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8704-3262
Juliet A Usher-SmithPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8501-2531

Funding

Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre C9685/A25117Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/6National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR300861
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUsing risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies.

methodsWe conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in each. Participants were purposefully sampled by age (40-79 years), sex, ethnicity, social grade and English region. On the first day, participants were informed of the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening and the implications of different ways of introducing stratification using scenarios based on phenotypic and genetic risk scores. On the second day, participants deliberated to reach a verdict on the research question, 'Which approach(es) to inviting people to screening are acceptable, and under what circumstances?' Deliberations and feedback were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsAcross the juries, the principle of risk stratification was generally considered to be an acceptable approach for determining eligibility for screening. Disregarding increasing capacity, the participants considered it to enable efficient resource allocation to high-risk individuals and could see how it might help to save lives. However, there were concerns regarding fair implementation, particularly how the risk assessment would be performed at scale and how people at low risk would be managed. Some favoured using the most accurate risk prediction model whereas others thought that certain risk factors should be prioritized (particularly factors considered as non-modifiable and relatively stable, such as genetics and family history). Transparently justifying the programme and public education about cancer risk emerged as important contributors to acceptability.

conclusionUsing risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening was acceptable to informed members of the public, particularly if it included risk factors they considered fair and when communicated transparently. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient and public involvement representatives were involved throughout this study. They were not involved in synthesizing the results but contributed to producing study materials, co-facilitated the community juries and commented on the interpretation of the findings and final report.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsAdultAgedHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk Assessmentacceptabilitycancercommunicationcommunity jurypopulation screeningrisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID35526275
PMCPMC9327868

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.