Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36827432›Full record

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.

Lily C Taylor, Katie Law, Alison Hutchinson, Rebecca A Dennison, Juliet A Usher-Smith

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Lily C TaylorThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0832-9244
Katie LawSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Alison HutchinsonSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Rebecca A DennisonThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0847-0723
Juliet A Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR300861
6 · The paper itself

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

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsAttitudeDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID36827432
PMCPMC9956883

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.