Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41039181›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2026

Public Preferences for Emerging Cancer Screening Modalities: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Chee Ern Har, Qi Gao, Wenjia Chen, Yi Wang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Digital oncology interventions and equity: a scoping review of design strategies to address cancer disparities.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Chee Ern HarSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117549, Singapore.ORCID 0009-0000-4038-8554
Qi GaoSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117549, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-0321-3293
Wenjia ChenSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117549, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8201-7145
Yi WangSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117549, Singapore. ephwyi@nus.edu.sg.ORCID 0000-0003-1934-9926

Funding

Ministry of Education Singapore 24-0089-A0001Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore Public HealthSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore SSHSPH-NCCS Joint Programme in CancerSingapore Cancer Society SCS-GRA-2024-00282
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly detection of cancer reduces mortality and morbidity, but conventional screening methods often face challenges such as invasiveness, limited accessibility and high resource demands. Emerging cancer screening technologies could overcome these barriers, yet their adoption depends heavily on public acceptance. This systematic review synthesises evidence from discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies examining population preferences for emerging cancer screening technologies.

methodsA systematic review was conducting following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and EconLit were systematically searched for studies published up to August 2025. Eligible studies employed DCEs to assess preferences for modalities including liquid biopsy, multi-cancer early detection tests, artificial intelligence reading systems, genetic and genomic testing, mobile Health applications, nanopill-based screening and breath analysis. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers and assessed for reporting quality using the DIRECT checklist. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

resultsIn total, 23 studies published between 2014 and 2025 were included, most focusing on genomic testing (n = 8) or liquid biopsy (n = 5). Across studies, 32 attributes were identified and categorised under clinical risk, modality characteristics, screening process, outcomes, or ethical considerations. Respondents generally favoured screening programmes that were clinically effective, accessible and minimally disruptive. Sensitivity was most frequently reported as the most influential attribute. Modality specific attributes influencing public preferences were identified, including data privacy and insurability for genetic and genomic testing, and the role of test providers for mHealth technologies and AI screening tools. Heterogeneity in preferences, attribute importance and predicted uptake were observed across many studies, highlighting differential attitudes towards cancer screening and modality specific attributes within the population.

conclusionsThis systematic review provides the first synthesis of DCE evidence across a wide range of emerging cancer screening technologies. Findings reveal that public preferences were shaped not only by clinical performance, but also by convenience, cost and the perceived credibility of new modalities. Considerable heterogeneity in preferences signals the need for tailored strategies to engage different population subgroups and avoid widening disparities in uptake. As these technologies move towards clinical adoption, robust governance and regulatory safeguards will be essential to ensure their translation into equitable and effective cancer screening programmes.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorEarly Detection of CancerNeoplasmsPatient PreferenceFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID41039181
PMCPMC12935820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.