Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36243684›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Perspectives on cancer screening participation in a highly urbanized region: a Q-methodology study in The Hague, the Netherlands.

Thomas H G Bongaerts, Frederike L Büchner, Matty R Crone, Job van Exel, Onno R Guicherit, Mattijs E Numans, Vera Nierkens

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

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas H G BongaertsHealth Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands. t.h.g.bongaerts@lumc.nl.
Frederike L BüchnerHealth Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Matty R CroneDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Job van ExelErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Onno R GuicheritUniversity Cancer Center Leiden - The Hague, at Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Mattijs E NumansHealth Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Vera NierkensDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLMedisch Centrum Haaglanden · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Netherlands hosts, as many other European countries, three population-based cancer screening programmes (CSPs). The overall uptake among these CSPs is high, but has decreased over recent years. Especially in highly urbanized regions the uptake rates tend to fall below the minimal effective rate of 70% set by the World Health Organization. Understanding the reasons underlying the decision of citizens to partake in a CPS are essential in order to optimize the current screening participation rates. The aim of this study was to explore the various perspectives concerning cancer screening among inhabitants of The Hague, a highly urbanized region of the Netherlands.

methodsA Q-methodology study was conducted to provide insight in the prevailing perspectives on partaking in CSPs. All respondents were inhabitants of the city of The Hague, the Netherlands. In an online application they ranked a set of 31 statements, based on the current available literature and clustered by the Integrated Change model, into a 9-column forced ranking grid according to level of agreement, followed by a short survey. Respondents were asked to participate in a subsequent interview to explain their ranking. By-person factor analysis was used to identify distinct perspectives, which were interpreted using data from the rankings and interviews.

resultsThree distinct perspectives were identified: 1). "Positive about participation", 2). "Thoughtful about participation", and 3). "Fear drives participation". These perspectives provide insight into how potential respondents, living in an urbanized region in the Netherlands, decide upon partaking in CSPs.

conclusionsSince CSPs will only be effective when participation rates are sufficiently high, it is essential to have insight into the different perspectives among potential respondents concerning partaking in a CSP. This study adds new insights concerning these perspectives and suggests several ideas for future optimization of the CSPs.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsHumansMass ScreeningNetherlandsSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer screeningI-Change modelParticipationPerspectivesQ-methodologyUptake

Identifiers

PMID36243684
PMCPMC9571478
OpenAlexW4306292878

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.