ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Urgent, but Not Certain: A Systematic Environmental Scan and Content Analysis of Publicly Available Patient Information for Suspected-Cancer Referral in England.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient information is a component of care following an urgent suspected cancer referral, but its ability to explain diagnostic uncertainty and support safe action while patients await investigation has not been systematically examined. We evaluated publicly retrievable referral resources used in England.
methodsWe conducted a systematic environmental scan and directed content analysis of materials hosted or adopted by England's 20 NHS Cancer Alliances and NHS services. Standard, Easy Read, visual, and audiovisual variants were assessed using an 18-item Referral Uncertainty Communication Framework. Criteria were scored absent, incomplete, or explicit and actionable. PEMAT, readability, format comparisons, and prespecified sensitivity analyses were secondary.
resultsThirty-eight resource variants were included. Thirty-three (86.8%) explicitly separated referral from cancer diagnosis, whereas 28 (73.7%) distinguished urgency from cancer likelihood. Only one (2.6%) preserved the patient's referral trigger. Six (15.8%) gave a timeframe qualified for individual variation; 11 (28.9%) advised action if symptoms worsened or changed while investigation was pending; and 10 (26.3%) addressed persistent symptoms after reassuring tests or a no-cancer outcome. Ownership was the strongest domain and safety-netting the weakest. Mean scores were 29.1/36 for standard or interactive resources, 22.3/36 for Easy Read resources, and 15.5/36 for visual aids. Findings were consistent in complete-source sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsPublicly retrievable information explains pathway entry, but less consistently supports clinical safety during unresolved uncertainty. These omissions may leave patients without guidance when plans no longer fit. Referral materials should retain the presenting concern, separate urgency from probability, qualify timing, identify responsibility, and provide explicit symptom-contingent return advice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42684652What 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.