ArticleBMC public health2026
Colorectal cancer risk: stereotypical assumptions and competing values - a qualitative study with the general public.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInforming the public about lifestyle-related risk factors for colorectal cancer (CRC) is central for cancer prevention. More knowledge is needed about the public’s perceptions of CRC risk and how it relates to their lifestyle decisions, in order to design and communicate risk information effectively. This study aims to explore how the general public perceives risk factors for CRC, their risk of developing CRC, and their willingness to make lifestyle changes to reduce their CRC risk. The study also explores their experiences of, and preferences for, lifestyle-related risk communication and cancer prevention in the community.
methodsThe study employed an explorative qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May 2024 and January 2025 with 25 individuals from the general public in Sweden, including women and men aged 22 to 80 years. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke.
resultsFour themes with 10 sub-themes were identified. The first theme, Information void leaves room for uninformed assumptions, describes participants’ limited understanding of CRC and its risk factors, resulting in assumptions about risks based on stereotypical and intuitive beliefs. In the second theme, Colorectal cancer risk – one of many competing aspects in the pursuit of a fulfilling life, participants described balancing values and factors beyond health risks that influenced their motivation and ability to adopt healthy lifestyle habits. The third theme, Need for comprehensible information that addresses actual knowledge gaps, describes that participants requested credible and personally engaging risk information that provides actionable advice without instilling worry or blaming individuals. The fourth theme, Community interventions should facilitate healthier behaviours but not restrict individuals’ personal choice, describes participants’ reflections on a shared responsibility for cancer prevention, emphasizing that society should support a healthy lifestyle without excessively interfering in individuals lives.
conclusionsThere was a clear need for more information about CRC and associated lifestyle risks. As individuals balance competing values in their lifestyle decisions, risk information must be nuanced and respectful of personal priorities and communicated carefully in a positive and supportive way to raise awareness and encourage healthy choices.
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.