SynthesisPatient education and counseling2020
Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Patient education and counseling, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Participant factors associated with psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening: A systematic review.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Priorities for breast cancer risk assessment in UK women under age 50: a survey and discrete choice experiment.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Missing infrastructure for real-world predictive AI impact.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Assessment tools for disease risk perception in chronic patients: theoretical frameworks, psychometric properties, and clinical applications.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- From bedside to bench: towards clinical predictive AI research that achieves real-world impact.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Review
- Illness risk representations underlying women's breast cancer risk appraisals: A theory-informed qualitative analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2025Article
- Feasibility study of using the PREDICT kidney tool for patients with localised renal cell carcinoma.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Stratified/risk-based screening for colorectal cancer in the UK: an overview.Colorectal cancer · 2025Review
- Are Women's Breast Cancer Risk Appraisals in Line with Updated Clinical Risk Estimates Communicated? Results from a UK Family History Risk and Prevention Clinic.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- A Pilot Study of BRAIN BOOTCAMP, a Low-Intensity Intervention on Diet, Exercise, Cognitive Activity, and Social Interaction to Improve Older Adults' Dementia Risk Scores.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2024Article
- How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2023Article
- Thyroid Cancer Risk Communication in Patients with Thyroid Nodules.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Patient experience of follow-up after surgery for kidney cancer: a focus group study.BJU international · 2023Article
- Patient decision support resources inform decisions about cancer susceptibility genetic testing and risk management: a systematic review of patient impact and experience.Frontiers in health services · 2023Review
- Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo synthesize the literature on the effect of provision of personalised cancer risk information to individuals at population level risk on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses.
methodsA systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of articles published from 01/01/2000 to 01/07/2017.
resultsWe included 23 studies. Immediately after provision of risk information 87% of individuals were able to recall the absolute risk estimate. Less than half believed that to be their risk, with up to 71% believing their risk to be higher than the estimate. Provision of risk information increased accuracy of perceived absolute risk immediately after risk information compared with no information (pooled RR 4.16 (95%CI 1.28-13.49), 3 studies). There was no significant effect on comparative risk accuracy (pooled RR 1.39 (0.72-2.69), 2 studies) and either no change or a reduction in cancer worry, anxiety and fear.
conclusionThese findings highlight the complex cognitive processes involved in the conceptualisation of risk. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Individuals who appear to understand and are able to recall risk information most likely do not believe it reflects their own risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.