SynthesisThe Lancet. Public health2025
Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Lancet. Public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Stratified Breast Cancer Screening: Early Outcomes and Psychological Impact from PRSONAL - a Randomized Clinical Trial.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Trial
- Evolving attitudes towards cancer screening: a 2024 update of UK population views.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Understanding patient perspectives on breast cancer risk: a qualitative study to inform genetic testing communication in the primary care setting.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- How has Acceptability Been Defined and Measured in Cancer Screening Research? A Scoping Review.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Perceptions of the Acceptability of Community-Based Breast Cancer Risk Assessment among Underserved Latinas in Maricopa County, Arizona.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Emerging Approaches in Breast Cancer: From Molecular Mechanisms to Diagnosis and Therapeutic Strategies.Oncology research · 2026Review
- Patient and Physician Perspectives on Using Risk Prediction to Support Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Making.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Risk stratification in fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening: Public acceptance and experiences with tailored invitation intervals.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Improving preventive screening efficiency: A population-based model of age-specific mammographic density for breast Cancer detection in Saudi Arabia.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Cancer screening outside of age recommendations: a population-based study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The Importance of Comorbidities at Baseline and 5-Year Follow-Up in a Lung Cancer Biomarker Screening Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing cancer risk awareness and screening management through artificial intelligence: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPersonalised risk-based screening (PRBS) can enhance the efficiency of cancer screening programnes, but little is known about support for its implementation among the general public and health-care professionals. We aimed to summarise the acceptability and perceptions of PRBS for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening among these groups.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of original research studies reporting on breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening; personalised risk assessments to guide PRBS; and the acceptability of and receptibility towards these approaches among the general public, health-care professionals, or both. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus for articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and April 30, 2024. Studies not reporting on the outcomes of interest and with insufficient data for analysis were excluded. Six reviewers independently screened articles, and risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Quantitative data were analysed with use of random-effects meta-analysis for outcomes that had at least two studies. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO, CRD42022354287.
findingsOur search identified 4491 unique records. After screening, 63 studies were included in our analysis, of which 36 (57%) included the general public, 21 (33%) included health-care professionals, and six (11%) included both. The majority of studies focused on breast cancer screening (43 [68%] studies), and were from North America (28 [44%]) and Europe (28 [44%]). Qualitative findings were analysed thematically, and the extracted quantitative findings were synthesised under the following topics: acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk assessments among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among health-care professionals; and barriers and facilitators to PRBS implementation among health-care professionals. The general public and health-care professionals generally found PRBS acceptable, but they needed more information about how risk was calculated and the accuracy of risk scores. Additionally, both groups were cautious about reducing screening frequencies for individuals at low risk and cited barriers such as the time and resources needed to implement an effective PRBS programme. The pooled estimate for acceptability of PRBS was 78% (95% CI 66-88) among the general public and 86% (64-99) among health-care professionals.
interpretationThe general public and health-care professionals both viewed personalised risk assessments as providing valuable information and PRBS as a logical next step to increase the quality of patient care and improve cancer mortality. However, implementation barriers at the public, health-care professional, and system level need to be addressed.
fundingNational Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.
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.