Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39243000›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2024

Acceptability of de-intensified screening for women at low risk of breast cancer: a randomised online experimental survey.

Charlotte Kelley-Jones, Suzanne E Scott, Jo Waller

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Charlotte Kelley-JonesCancer Prevention Group, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Campus, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 1UL, UK. charlotte.kelley_jones@kcl.ac.uk.
Suzanne E ScottCancer Prevention Group, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Campus, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 1UL, UK.
Jo WallerCancer Prevention Group, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Campus, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 1UL, UK.

Funding

Breast Cancer Now 2018BCNNovPhD12651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk-stratified approaches to breast screening show promise for increasing benefits and reducing harms. But the successful implementation of such an approach will rely on public acceptability. To date, research suggests that while increased screening for women at high risk will be acceptable, any de-intensification of screening for low-risk groups may be met with less enthusiasm. We report findings from a population-based survey of women in England, approaching the age of eligibility for breast screening, to compare the acceptability of current age-based screening with two hypothetical risk-adapted approaches for women at low risk of breast cancer.

methodsAn online survey of 1,579 women aged 40-49 with no personal experience of breast cancer or mammography. Participants were recruited via a market research panel, using target quotas for educational attainment and ethnic group, and were randomised to view information about (1) standard NHS age-based screening; (2) a later screening start age for low-risk women; or (3) a longer screening interval for low-risk women. Primary outcomes were cognitive, emotional, and global acceptability. ANOVAs and multiple regression were used to compare acceptability between groups and explore demographic and psychosocial factors associated with acceptability.

resultsAll three screening approaches were judged to be acceptable on the single-item measure of global acceptability (mean score > 3 on a 5-point scale). Scores for all three measures of acceptability were significantly lower for the risk-adapted scenarios than for age-based screening. There were no differences between the two risk-adapted scenarios. In multivariable analysis, higher breast cancer knowledge was positively associated with cognitive and emotional acceptability of screening approach. Willingness to undergo personal risk assessment was not associated with experimental group.

conclusionWe found no difference in the acceptability of later start age vs. longer screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer in a large sample of women who were screening naïve. Although acceptability of both risk-adapted scenarios was lower than for standard age-based screening, overall acceptability was reasonable. The positive associations between knowledge and both cognitive and emotional acceptability suggests clear and reassuring communication about the rationale for de-intensified screening may enhance acceptability.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultEnglandFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesAcceptabilityBreast cancerBreast screeningMammographyNHS Breast Screening ProgrammePersonal risk assessmentRisk-based cancer screeningRisk-stratification

Identifiers

PMID39243000
PMCPMC11378402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.