ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring how and why attributes of existing and emerging early cancer detection tests influence experiences and participation among individuals at risk of socioeconomic disadvantage: A qualitative interview study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
backgroundEmerging sample biomarker tests promise to improve early cancer detection, but also stand to influence socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of asymptomatic screening and symptomatic referrals.
objectiveTo explore how and why different attributes of early cancer detection tests influence experiences and participation across test modalities and contexts among individuals at risk of socioeconomic disadvantage.
methodQualitative semi-structured interviews with 30 individuals (aged ≥50 years) at risk of socioeconomic disadvantage explored how and why different attributes of early cancer detection tests affected their experiences and participation across test modalities and contexts. Vignette test scenarios and a think-aloud protocol were used to facilitate interviewees' deliberation between a range of test attributes. Data were analysed using framework analysis.
resultsSelect attributes of early cancer detection tests prevented equitable access due to conflicts with lived experiences such as caring responsibilities, reduced mobility, concerns about being stigmatised, and not being physically or psychologically able to undergo procedures. Participants perceived more invasive forms of testing conducted by a doctor in a hospital to indicate greater risk of a cancer diagnosis, and higher perceived risk of cancer was associated with preferences for attributes perceived to deliver an accurate or quick result. Participants varied in what they considered a 'cancer test' and some did not want to test due to the perceived or experienced burden of waiting for or receiving a cancer result.
conclusionsEmerging sample tests to support early cancer detection could address existing barriers to uptake by offering greater convenience. Inequitable uptake may persist if individuals do not perceive there to be a sufficient reason to test, are not confident to take part or doubt the ability of sample tests to accurately detect signs of cancer.
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.