Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39320563›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2024

Improving the communication of multifactorial cancer risk assessment results for different audiences: a co-design process.

Francisca Stutzin Donoso, Tim Carver, Lorenzo Ficorella, Nichola Fennell, Antonis C Antoniou, Douglas F Easton, Marc Tischkowitz, Fiona M Walter, Juliet A Usher-Smith, Stephanie Archer

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Francisca Stutzin DonosoDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. fsd26@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Tim CarverDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Lorenzo FicorellaDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Nichola FennellDepartment of Medical Genetics, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Antonis C AntoniouDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Douglas F EastonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Marc TischkowitzDepartment of Medical Genetics, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Fiona M WalterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Juliet A Usher-SmithDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Stephanie ArcherDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK G105016ACancer Research UK PPRPGM-Nov20\100002NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre BRC-1215-20014*
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultifactorial cancer risk prediction tools, such as CanRisk, are increasingly being incorporated into routine healthcare. Understanding risk information and communicating risk is challenging and healthcare professionals rely substantially on the outputs of risk prediction tools to communicate results. This work aimed to produce a new CanRisk report so users can directly access key information and communicate risk estimates effectively.

methodsOver a 13-month period, we led an 8-step co-design process with patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. Steps comprised 1) think aloud testing of the original CanRisk report; 2) structured feedback on the original report; 3) literature review; 4) development of a new report prototype; 5) first round of structured feedback; 6) updating the new report prototype; 7) second round of structured feedback; and 8) finalising and publishing the new CanRisk report.

resultsWe received 56 sets of feedback from 34 stakeholders. Overall, the original CanRisk report was not suitable for patients and the public. Building on the feedback, the new report has an overview of the information presented: section one summarises key information for individuals; sections two and three present information for healthcare professionals in different settings. New features also include explanatory text, definitions, graphs, keys and tables to support the interpretation of the information. DISCUSSION: This co-design experience shows the value of collaboration for the successful communication of complex health information. As a result, the new CanRisk report has the potential to better support shared decision-making processes about cancer risk management across clinical settings.

Indexed as

Breast cancerCo-designMultifactorial cancer risk assessmentRisk communication

Identifiers

PMID39320563
PMCPMC11549070

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.