Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 8 (1), e017717

Effect of Interventions Incorporating Personalised Cancer Risk Information on Intentions and Behaviour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Affiliations
Review

Effect of Interventions Incorporating Personalised Cancer Risk Information on Intentions and Behaviour: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Juliet A Usher-Smith et al. BMJ Open.

Abstract

Objective: 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.

Design: A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis.

Data sources: An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2017.

Inclusion criteria: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Keywords: oncology; preventive medicine; public health.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. RCT, randomised controlled trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Relative risk for adherence to recommended screening postintervention. AR, absolute risk; CR, comparative risk; CRC, colorectal cancer; FOBT, faecal occult blood test.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 6 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. National Cancer Institute. The nation’s investment in cancer research. A plan and budget proposal for the fiscal year 2006, 2006.
    1. McCaul KD, O’Donnell SM. Naive beliefs about breast cancer risk. Womens Heal 1998;4:93–101. - PubMed
    1. Emery J, Morris H, Goodchild R, et al. The GRAIDS Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of computer decision support for the management of familial cancer risk in primary care. Br J Cancer 2007;97:486–93. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603897 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Weinstein ND, Atwood K, Puleo E, et al. Colon cancer: risk perceptions and risk communication. J Health Commun 2004;9:53–65. 10.1080/10810730490271647 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Waters EA, Klein WM, Moser RP, et al. Correlates of unrealistic risk beliefs in a nationally representative sample. J Behav Med 2011;34:225–35. 10.1007/s10865-010-9303-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback