ArticleBMC cancer2026
Priority setting for the implementation of effective interventions for cancer prevention through collaboration among patients, the public and researchers in Japan.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the availability of effective interventions for cancer prevention, Japan faces substantial evidence-practice gaps, such as in the low utilization of smoking cessation treatments, HPV vaccination, and cancer screening. Implementation research plays a critical role in bridging this gap by promoting the uptake of effective interventions in real-world settings. Globally, however, prioritization of the implementation of these various interventions remains unclear. To address this need, we conducted a structured priority-setting exercise using the CHNRI method and incorporating perspectives from diverse stakeholders, including citizens.
methodsWe conducted a four-phase research prioritization process using the CHNRI method to identify which effective interventions for cancer prevention should be prioritized for implementation in Japan. The process included listing effective interventions for cancer prevention, surveying stakeholders, conducting a web-based survey among researchers, and calculating priority scores.
resultsAmong 215 invited researchers, 92 (42.8%) and 67 (31.2%) researchers responded to the first and second surveys, respectively. In both surveys, physicians accounted for the largest proportion of respondents. Across both surveys, HPV vaccination for females, cervical cancer screening, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), mammography, and tobacco control policies were identified as top priorities.
conclusionsPriorities for implementing effective interventions for cancer prevention were set through collaboration with researchers and citizens, providing a foundation for future research and progress.
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.