Rebecca A. Dennison

Country flagUnited Kingdom

Research Interests

Explore related searches

Contact this professor

Get a free first email built on one of their papers, ready for you to edit and send yourself.

Articles (10)

Year:

2023

Year:

2023

Introduction Risk‐stratified cancer screening has the potential to improve resource allocation and the balance of harms and benefits by targeting those most likely to benefit. Public acceptability has implications for engagement, uptake and the success of such a programme. Therefore, this review seeks to understand whether risk stratification of population‐based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to the general public and in what context. Methods Four electronic databases were searched from January 2010 to November 2021. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods papers were eligible for inclusion. The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach was used to synthesize the findings and the quality of included literature was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used as a coding frame for thematic analysis. PROSPERO record 2021 CRD42021286667. Results The search returned 12,039 citations, 22 of which were eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies related to breast cancer screening; other cancer types included ovarian, kidney, colorectal and prostate cancer. Risk stratification was generally acceptable to the public, who considered it to be logical and of wider benefit than existing screening practices. We identified 10 priorities for implementation across four key areas: addressing public information needs; understanding communication preferences for risk estimates; mitigating barriers to accessibility to avoid exacerbating inequalities; and the role of healthcare professionals in relation to supporting reduced screening for low‐risk individuals. Conclusion The public generally find risk stratification of population‐based cancer screening programmes to be acceptable; however, we have identified areas that would improve implementation and require further consideration. Patient or Public Contribution This paper is a systematic review and did not formally involve patients or the public; however, three patient and public involvement members were consulted on the topic and scope before the review commenced.

Year:

2023

Year:

2023

Year:

2023

Year:

2023

Year:

2022

Year:

2022

Year:

2021

Year:

2021

Collaborators (8)

Claire L Meek

University of Cambridge

UNITED KINGDOM
View details

Catherine E. Aiken

University of Cambridge

UNITED KINGDOM
View details

Sarah Hindmarch

The University of Manchester

UNITED KINGDOM
View details

Stephen Morris

RAND Professor of Health Services Research, University of Cambridge

University of Cambridge

UNITED KINGDOM
View details

Lucie de Jonge

Erasmus University Rotterdam

NETHERLANDS
View details

Juliet A. Usher-Smith

University of Cambridge

UNITED KINGDOM
View details

David French

Professor of Health Psychology

The University of Manchester

UNITED KINGDOM
View details

Grant D. Stewart

-

UNITED KINGDOM
View details
ApplyKite TwinLearns as you apply

Make your next move.

Prepare your application

Review drafts before you send them.