ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Exploring public preferences and demand for ovarian cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Routine population-level screening may in the future reduce the high mortality rates associated with late-stage ovarian cancer diagnosis. However, the voluntary nature of screening means that understanding the public's acceptability of the benefits, harms and likely uptake of any potential screening programme is crucial to implementation. Objective: To measure public preferences towards the benefits and harms of a potential screening programme and to predict uptake. Methods: An online Discrete Choice Experiment was completed by 250 women 40-80 years old in England and Wales. Subjects were asked 12 questions where they were asked to choose between two hypothetical screening tests described in terms of four attributes; ovarian cancer deaths, false-positive, false-negative and overdiagnosis rates, and no screening. Responses were analysed using mixed logit regression. Results: In total, 250 women completed the survey. Ovarian cancer deaths (0.42, [95% CI: 0.40 - 0.44]) was the most important attribute overall, followed by the rate of false positive results (0.30, [95% CI: 0.30-0.30]). However, there were high levels of heterogeneity with individuals exhibiting low levels of worry about ovarian cancer (OR=1.76 [95% CI: 1.17-2.69]), low perceived risk of ovarian cancer (OR=1.44 [95% 1.03-2.03]) or risk-averse individuals (OR=1.46 [95% CI: 1.05-2.04]) significantly more likely to opt for the no screening alternative. Oppositely, individuals who regularly participate in cervical screening (OR=0.63 [0.47-0.90]) were less likely to opt for no screening. Overall, results indicated participants would be willing to accept 2.59 (95% CI: 1.82 - 3.36) false-negative results, 205 (95% CI: 161 - 248) false-positive results and 2.35 (95% CI: 1.76-2.94) per 10,000 people screened to avoid 1 ovarian cancer-related death. Uptake analysis confirmed a high willingness to undergo screening across varying levels of benefits and harms. Conclusions: Currently ovarian cancer screening is not recommended as available screening methods do not offer benefits in terms of mortality reduction. The results of this study demonstrate a high demand for ovarian cancer screening and a willingness to trade between the benefits and risks of a potential test. Results of this study provide a useful resource for assessing the acceptability of future screening modalities which may become available.
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.