ArticleBMJ open2025
Risk-based innovations in cancer screening and diagnosis: a discrete choice experiment to explore priorities of the UK public.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
objectiveTo understand the importance and potential impact on uptake of different attributes of risk-based innovations in the context of risk-stratified healthcare for cancer screening and symptomatic diagnosis.
designThe online survey comprised a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which participants chose between two risk assessment options or to opt out of risk stratification. There were six attributes: test method, type (genetic or non-genetic), location, frequency, sensitivity and specificity. Participants were randomly allocated to consider the choice in an asymptomatic or symptomatic context.
settingMembers of the public in the UK.
participants1202 participants completed the DCE. OUTCOME MEASURES: Conditional logistic regression and latent class analysis informed modelling of predicted preferences for a range of innovations with different features.
resultsOverall, participants preferred risk assessments over opting out and prioritised sensitivity, with test method and specificity also important. Genetic and non-invasive tests were favoured. With sensitivity and specificity of 80% or better, participants would be more likely to take up a risk assessment than not. Comparing the asymptomatic and symptomatic contexts, 65% and 73% of participants would be very likely to participate regardless of the innovation used, and 29% and 13% of participants might participate depending on the method, sensitivity and specificity. A minority showed strong dislike of risk-based innovations, particularly within screening.
conclusionsThere are high levels of public support for risk-based innovations within risk-stratified cancer healthcare, especially for referral decision-making and using genetic and non-invasive tests. Optimising risk-based innovations is needed to engage those whose participation is contingent on test methods and performance metrics.
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.