ArticlePloS one2025
Mammography screening: Eliciting the voices of informed citizens.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany medical organisations recommend continuing with existing mammography screening programmes but some recommend stopping or de-intensifying them. In Denmark women aged 50-69 are offered biennial mammograms free-of-charge.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether or not an informed public would recommend continuation of the Danish mammography screening programme, and to determine whether this recommendation was in line with what participants considered to be acceptable levels of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis.
methodsA Deliberative Poll on mammography screening was held online in Denmark and 89 citizens participated. They were representative of the general population on sociodemographic parameters, attitudes towards and knowledge of mammography screening. Participants studied a video about the programme and took part in an online citizens' assembly where they deliberated with peers and experts in the field. All participants answered a survey at four time points: at recruitment; after video information; after deliberation, and a month after the assembly.
resultsQuestionnaire data revealed that many participants were influenced by the deliberative polling process as 36%, changed their recommendation afterwards. At recruitment, 72% of participants strongly supported the continuation of mammography screening. This proportion was lower after the presentation of video information (55%), after deliberation (65%), and a month after the assembly (58%). Interestingly, these changes in recommendation were not correlated to changes in knowledge. The proportion of participants who recommended continuation following what they stated were acceptable rates of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis rose from 21% at recruitment to 40% after information and deliberation. Most participants (60%), therefore, made a recommendation that was not in line with levels of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis that they felt were acceptable.
conclusionAfter video information and deliberation participants were less supportive of the mammography screening programme compared to their immediate recommendation at the beginning of the process.
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.