ArticleBMC public health2023
Perceptions and feelings of a French sample regarding lung cancer screening.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening uptake and intention to screen: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Pooled it
- Organized Lung Cancer Screening of Subjects Occupationally Exposed to Lung Carcinogens: The LUng Cancer Screening Occupational exposure Study Entry Findings.JTO clinical and research reports · 2026Article
- Attitudes toward cancer screening and its' associated factors: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study investigated the perceptions and feelings of a French sample about the possible introduction of lung cancer screening.
methodsA total of 146 individuals, aged between 19- and 64-years, participated in this study conducted between November 2020 and January 2021. Participants were divided into three groups according to their smoking status: (i) active smokers (G1); former smokers (G2); and non-smokers (G3). Each individual completed an online questionnaire evaluating their perceptions and feelings about lung cancer, screening and scans.
resultsOverall, a higher percentage of former smokers (47%) indicated a greater willingness to participate in lung cancer screening compared to active smokers (19%) and non-smokers (32%). Active smokers and former smokers reported anxiety about the development of lung cancer. Active smokers who wished to participate in screening reported a greater motivation to reduce their tobacco consumption. The perception of lung cancer risk had less influence than age and socio-economic category on the participation in screening. Finally, stigma did not appear to be a barrier to undergoing screening.
conclusionActive and former smokers were generally optimistic about screening; however, active smokers showed less inclination to participate in screening compared to former smokers and non-smokers. Three main factors appeared to influence this participation: the perception of the risk of developing cancer, age and socio-economic category.
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.