↓ Skip to main content

Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published in
BMJ Open, January 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017717
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet A Usher-Smith, Barbora Silarova, Stephen J Sharp, Katie Mills, Simon J Griffin

Abstract

To provide a comprehensive review of the impact on intention to change health-related behaviours and health-related behaviours themselves, including screening uptake, of interventions incorporating information about cancer risk targeted at the general adult population. A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis. An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2017. Randomised controlled trials of interventions including provision of a personal estimate of future cancer risk based on two or more non-genetic variables to adults recruited from the general population that include at least one behavioural outcome. We included 19 studies reporting 12 outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes between studies. There is evidence that interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect intention to attend or attendance at screening (relative risk 1.00 (0.97-1.03)). There is limited evidence that they increase smoking abstinence, sun protection, adult skin self-examination and breast examination, and decrease intention to tan. However, they do not increase smoking cessation, parental child skin examination or intention to protect skin. No studies assessed changes in diet, alcohol consumption or physical activity. Interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect uptake of screening, but there is limited evidence of effect on some health-related behaviours. Further research, ideally including objective measures of behaviour, is needed before cancer risk information is incorporated into routine practice for health promotion in the general population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Psychology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 27 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,765,323
of 15,922,891 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#6,023
of 14,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,435
of 368,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#301
of 605 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,891 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 605 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.