ArticleFamily practice2024
Lay and general practitioner attitudes towards endometrial cancer prevention: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Family practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective and targeted endometrial cancer prevention strategies could reduce diagnoses by 60%. Whether this approach is acceptable to individuals and general practitioners (GPs) is currently unknown. This study sought to determine attitudes towards the provision of personalised endometrial cancer risk assessments and the acceptability of potential prevention strategies.
methodsSpecific online questionnaires were developed for individuals aged 45-60 years with a uterus and UK-practising GPs, with social media, charity websites, and email used to advertise the study. Individuals completed the questionnaires between February and April 2022.
resultsOf 660 lay questionnaire respondents, 90.3% (n = 596) thought that undergoing an endometrial cancer risk assessment was a good or very good idea and 95.6% (n = 631) would be willing to undergo such an assessment. The commonest reasons for wanting to participate were "to try and reduce my risk" (n = 442, 67.0%), "to be informed" (n = 354, 53.6%), and "it could save my life' (n = 315, 47.7%). Over 80% of respondents would make lifestyle changes to reduce their endometrial cancer risk (n = 550), with half accepting a pill, Mirena, or hysterectomy for primary prevention. GPs were similarly engaged, with 93.0% (n = 106) willing to offer an endometrial cancer risk assessment if a tool were available, potentially during a Well Woman screen.
conclusionPersonalised endometrial cancer risk assessments are acceptable to potentially eligible individuals and GPs and could be accommodated within routine practice. Clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of lifestyle modification and Mirena for endometrial protection are urgently required and should be targeted at those at greatest disease risk.
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.