Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41271408›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

'I think it depends how it's done': a qualitative study of screening attendees' perspectives on receiving physical activity advice within UK NHS cancer screening programmes.

James Murphy, Claire Stevens, Anna L Roberts, Charlotte Vrinten, Jo Waller, Samuel G Smith, Rebecca J Beeken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

James Murphy *University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9672-0982
Claire Stevens *University College London, London, UK.
Anna L RobertsUniversity College London, London, UK.
Charlotte VrintenImperial College London, London, UK.
Jo WallerQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4025-9132
Samuel G SmithUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1983-4470
Rebecca J BeekenUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK r.beeken@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8287-9351

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCancer screening appointments are an opportunity to encourage positive behavioural changes. Up to 80% of cancer screening attendees are open to discussing physical activity during cancer screening, but some say this would deter them from future screening. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of individuals' receptivity to physical activity advice at cancer screening.

designInterview-based qualitative study. SETTING AND

participantsThe study was conducted from May 2017 to September 2018 in the UK. Participants were recruited using adverts on two university campuses, Facebook and a participant recruitment agency. To be eligible, participants had to have an upcoming cancer screening appointment within 2 weeks. There were 30 participants. PROCEDURES: Participants recorded their receptivity to physical activity advice in the days before and after screening. Data-prompted semi-structured interviews explored these responses. Interviews were analysed using a thematic framework analysis.

resultsParticipants felt discussing physical activity at cancer screening would be relevant. However, participants experienced anxiety related to the screening process which could increase or decrease their receptivity. Participants felt if information was delivered in a judgemental way, it could negatively impact future screening participation.

conclusionsScreening attendees' receptivity could be influenced by the timing of a discussion and by their levels of anxiety throughout screening. Participants' anxiety during screening can either reduce their ability to engage in a discussion or increase the relevance of the discussion. The communication style of the healthcare practitioner was key for why some screening attendees could be deterred from future cancer screening.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerExerciseNeoplasmsPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchState MedicineUnited KingdomMass ScreeningONCOLOGYQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID41271408
PMCPMC12645609

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.