Preferences for Decision Control among a High-Risk Cohort Offered Lung Cancer Screening: A Brief Report of Secondary Analyses from the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT).

Stefanie Bonfield, Mamta Ruparel, Jo Waller, Jennifer L Dickson, Samuel M Janes, Samantha L Quaife

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

2citing papers in PubMed

–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

Māori perspectives on a potential low dose CT lung cancer screening programme in Aotearoa New Zealand: results of a mixed-method cross-sectional survey.BMC public health · 2026
Article
Improving access and uptake of lung cancer screening with a focus on health inequity: the views of professionals involved in the UK NHS lung cancer screening programme.BMC cancer · 2026
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

6 authors.

Stefanie BonfieldResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7513-2575

Mamta RuparelLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8880-6567

Jo WallerSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Jennifer L DicksonLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9333-8320

Samuel M JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.

Samantha L QuaifeCentre for Cancer Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Highlights: Preferences for involvement in decision making about lung cancer screening are heterogeneous among high-risk individuals in the United Kingdom and vary by educational attainment.Further work is needed to understand how policy makers might implement hybrid approaches to accommodate individual preferences and optimize lung cancer screening program outcomes.

Indexed as

decision control preferenceslung cancer screeningshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID37009636

DOI10.1177/23814683231163190

PMCPMC10064161

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.