ArticleBMC public health2026
Māori perspectives on a potential low dose CT lung cancer screening programme in Aotearoa New Zealand: results of a mixed-method cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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.
- Te Oranga Pūkahukahu research programme: intentional steps towards a national equity-focused lung cancer screening programme in Aotearoa New Zealand.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening reduces lung cancer mortality by at least 20%. If implemented equitably, it has the potential to reduce inequities for Māori (the Indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand), whose rates of lung cancer are significantly higher than non-Māori. Our aim was to inform the equitable implementation of potential future lung cancer screening in Aotearoa by understanding the acceptability, decision making processes and design preferences for Māori and their whānau.
methodsIn 2020, Māori potentially eligible for lung cancer screening (n = 388) and their whānau/family members (n = 103) completed separate cross-sectional surveys about how a future screening programme could be designed and delivered. The focus of the surveys was to determine the level of support for a lung screening programme and to explore decision making and design preferences for Māori and their whānau. The two surveys were analysed separately with pre-defined responses reported as frequencies and percentages. Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare responses between gender, region, age-group and smoking status. Significant differences were further explored using pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. Free text comments were analysed thematically.
resultsThere was a very high level of support for a lung screening programme. When deciding whether to take part in screening, the strongest preferences were to follow doctors’ advice, followed by deciding alone, or with their whānau. An almost equal proportion of participants preferred to receive an invitation from their GP, or from a screening programme. Preferences for receiving information about the programme varied, with the most common being talking directly to a doctor, followed by reading a brochure, or receiving information via email. The results showed clear differences in preferences between demographic groups, particularly between regions and age-groups.
conclusionsSurveys of potentially eligible Māori participants and their whānau have revealed support for screening, but diverse preferences regarding decision making and programme design. These findings have informed a randomised controlled trial on lung cancer screening invitation approaches and will guide the development of a national lung screening programme.
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.