SynthesisPloS one2023
Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled 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
- Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction Tool in Primary Care to Increase Screening Uptake in Singapore: A Multi-Methods Pilot Study.Journal of primary care & community healthTrial
- Surveillance patterns in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer across risk groups: a real-world analysis.BJU international · 2026Article
- How has Acceptability Been Defined and Measured in Cancer Screening Research? A Scoping Review.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Integrating Biomarkers into Cervical Cancer Screening-Advances in Diagnosis and Risk Prediction: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Standardization, Education, and Resourcing: The Way Forward for Implementing Polygenic Risk Scores in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators of the implementation of mammography screening in the Brazilian public health system: scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- A systems based qualitative analysis exploring the potential to implement risk stratified bowel cancer screening in England.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- An intervention mapping approach to the development and evaluation of a community-based prostate cancer early detection programme in Nigeria.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Female sex workers and cervical cancer screening in Kilimanjaro region: Uptake and Behavioural Determinants in Health Belief Model Perspectives: A community-based cross-sectional study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Public acceptability and anticipated uptake of risk-stratified bowel cancer screening in the UK: An online survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Multiomics biomarkers were not superior to clinical variables for pan-cancer screening.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Targeted Screening for Cancer: Learnings and Applicability to Melanoma: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Understanding the Preferences and Considerations of the Public Towards Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Insights From Think-Aloud Interviews Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.Preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntroduction of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes has the potential to optimise resource allocation by targeting screening towards members of the population who will benefit from it most. Endorsement from healthcare professionals is necessary to facilitate successful development and implementation of risk-stratified interventions. Therefore, this review aims to explore whether using risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to healthcare professionals and to identify any requirements for successful implementation.
methodsWe searched four electronic databases from January 2010 to October 2021 for quantitative, qualitative, or primary mixed methods studies reporting healthcare professional and/or other stakeholder opinions on acceptability of risk-stratified population-based cancer screening. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach to mixed methods analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a 'best fit' approach. PROSPERO record CRD42021286667.
resultsA total of 12,039 papers were identified through the literature search and seven papers were included in the review, six in the context of breast cancer screening and one considering screening for ovarian cancer. Risk stratification was broadly considered acceptable, with the findings covering all five domains of the framework: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. Across these five domains, key areas that were identified as needing further consideration to support implementation were: a need for greater evidence, particularly for de-intensifying screening; resource limitations; need for staff training and clear communication; and the importance of public involvement.
conclusionsRisk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is largely acceptable to healthcare professionals, but support and training will be required to successfully facilitate implementation. Future research should focus on strengthening the evidence base for risk stratification, particularly in relation to reducing screening frequency among low-risk cohorts and the acceptability of this approach across different cancer types.
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.