ArticleBMC cancer2022
The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a 'think-aloud' study.
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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Optimizing risk-reducing surgery and aspirin decision aids for Lynch syndrome carriers using the person-based approach: A think-aloud interview study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Communication in oncology between healthcare providers, patients, the scientific community, and the media: recommendations from the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM).Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening in Malaysia: Challenges and Opportunities.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Review
- How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2023Article
- 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
- Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).British journal of cancer · 2023Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk stratified breast cancer screening is being considered as a means of improving the balance of benefits and harms of mammography. Stratified screening requires the communication of risk estimates. We aimed to co-develop personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications for women attending routine mammography.
methodsWe conducted think-aloud interviews on prototype breast cancer risk letters and accompanying information leaflets with women receiving breast screening through the UK National Breast Screening Programme. Risk information was redesigned following feedback from 55 women in three iterations. A deductive thematic analysis of participants' speech is presented.
resultsOverall, participants appreciated receiving their breast cancer risk. Their comments focused on positive framing and presentation of the risk estimate, a desire for detail on the contribution of individual risk factors to overall risk and effective risk management strategies, and clearly signposted support pathways.
conclusionProvision of breast cancer risk information should strive to be personal, understandable and meaningful. Risk information should be continually refined to reflect developments in risk management. Receipt of risk via letter is welcomed but concerns remain around the acceptability of informing women at higher risk in this way, highlighting a need for co-development of risk dissemination and support pathways.
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.