How has Acceptability Been Defined and Measured in Cancer Screening Research? A Scoping Review.

IF 3.9 2区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Psycho‐Oncology Pub Date : 2026-08-01 DOI:10.1002/pon.70578

Ninian Schmeising-Barnes, Christina Derksen, Charlotte Kelley Jones, Pranay Ruparelia, Ruth E C Evans, Evangelos Katsampouris, Emma Lidington, Lorna McWilliams, Sarah Hindmarch, Anthony Tsang, Adriana B Akbar, Asha V E Parmar, Suzanne E Scott, Jo Waller, Lauren Gatting

{"title":"How has Acceptability Been Defined and Measured in Cancer Screening Research? A Scoping Review.","authors":"Ninian Schmeising-Barnes, Christina Derksen, Charlotte Kelley Jones, Pranay Ruparelia, Ruth E C Evans, Evangelos Katsampouris, Emma Lidington, Lorna McWilliams, Sarah Hindmarch, Anthony Tsang, Adriana B Akbar, Asha V E Parmar, Suzanne E Scott, Jo Waller, Lauren Gatting","doi":"10.1002/pon.70578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Cancer screening is crucial for early detection and improved outcomes globally. Screening must be \"acceptable\" to health professionals and the public. However, acceptability definitions and measures have not always been made explicit. This scoping review aimed to explore the definitions, theories, and methods used by researchers investigating acceptability.Methods: We conducted a term-based scoping review of published literature in six databases. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Study characteristics (publication year, country, study design, sample size, population, methodological characteristics), characteristics of acceptability (definition, theory, test or device), and screening context (cancer type, screening procedure) were extracted by one author and checked independently by a second author. Results were reported descriptively. Definitions and operationalisations of acceptability were analysed through content analysis.Results: We identified 393 studies, largely published after 2013. Most examined patient or public attitudes towards self-sampling for cervical screening. Few studies cited theory (n = 55, 14%) or provided a definition of acceptability (n = 17, 4.3%). Acceptability was typically defined as a multidimensional construct or as perceptions or attitudes towards screening. Studies operationalised acceptability most often as physical side-effects (n = 68, 42.8%), willingness to attend screening (n = 59, 29.4%), screening method preference (n = 55, 27.4%), ease of use (n = 52, 25.9%), and general attitudes (n = 51, 25.4%).Conclusions: Research focussed on acceptability in cancer screening has not been based on theory and uses a range of operationalisations, including loosely related constructs such as uptake. A specific definition of acceptability in cancer screening and reporting guidelines for interdisciplinary research are needed to support evidence-based decision-making.","PeriodicalId":20779,"journal":{"name":"Psycho‐Oncology","volume":"35 8","pages":"e70578"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13492221/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psycho‐Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.70578","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Cancer screening is crucial for early detection and improved outcomes globally. Screening must be "acceptable" to health professionals and the public. However, acceptability definitions and measures have not always been made explicit. This scoping review aimed to explore the definitions, theories, and methods used by researchers investigating acceptability.

Methods: We conducted a term-based scoping review of published literature in six databases. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Study characteristics (publication year, country, study design, sample size, population, methodological characteristics), characteristics of acceptability (definition, theory, test or device), and screening context (cancer type, screening procedure) were extracted by one author and checked independently by a second author. Results were reported descriptively. Definitions and operationalisations of acceptability were analysed through content analysis.

Results: We identified 393 studies, largely published after 2013. Most examined patient or public attitudes towards self-sampling for cervical screening. Few studies cited theory (n = 55, 14%) or provided a definition of acceptability (n = 17, 4.3%). Acceptability was typically defined as a multidimensional construct or as perceptions or attitudes towards screening. Studies operationalised acceptability most often as physical side-effects (n = 68, 42.8%), willingness to attend screening (n = 59, 29.4%), screening method preference (n = 55, 27.4%), ease of use (n = 52, 25.9%), and general attitudes (n = 51, 25.4%).

Conclusions: Research focussed on acceptability in cancer screening has not been based on theory and uses a range of operationalisations, including loosely related constructs such as uptake. A specific definition of acceptability in cancer screening and reporting guidelines for interdisciplinary research are needed to support evidence-based decision-making.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在癌症筛查研究中，可接受性是如何定义和衡量的？范围审查。

目的：在全球范围内，癌症筛查对于早期发现和改善预后至关重要。筛查必须是卫生专业人员和公众“可接受”的。然而，可接受性的定义和措施并不总是明确的。本综述旨在探讨研究人员调查可接受性所使用的定义、理论和方法。方法：我们对六个数据库中已发表的文献进行了基于术语的范围综述。两名独立审稿人筛选了纳入的引文。研究特征（出版年份、国家、研究设计、样本量、人群、方法学特征）、可接受性特征（定义、理论、试验或装置）和筛查背景（癌症类型、筛查程序）由一位作者提取，并由另一位作者独立检查。结果以描述性方式报道。通过内容分析分析了可接受性的定义和可操作性。结果：我们确定了393项研究，大部分发表于2013年之后。大多数接受调查的病人或公众对自行抽样作子宫颈普查的态度。很少有研究引用理论（n = 55, 14%）或提供可接受性的定义（n = 17, 4.3%）。可接受性通常被定义为一个多维结构或对筛选的看法或态度。研究将可接受性分为身体副作用（n = 68, 42.8%）、参加筛查的意愿（n = 59, 29.4%）、筛查方法偏好（n = 55, 27.4%）、易用性（n = 52, 25.9%）和总体态度（n = 51, 25.4%）。结论：关注癌症筛查可接受性的研究尚未建立在理论基础上，并使用了一系列可操作的方法，包括松散相关的结构，如摄取。需要在跨学科研究的癌症筛查和报告指南中明确可接受性的定义，以支持基于证据的决策。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Psycho‐Oncology 医学-心理学

CiteScore

6.30

自引率

8.30%

发文量

220

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Psycho-Oncology is concerned with the psychological, social, behavioral, and ethical aspects of cancer. This subspeciality addresses the two major psychological dimensions of cancer: the psychological responses of patients to cancer at all stages of the disease, and that of their families and caretakers; and the psychological, behavioral and social factors that may influence the disease process. Psycho-oncology is an area of multi-disciplinary interest and has boundaries with the major specialities in oncology: the clinical disciplines (surgery, medicine, pediatrics, radiotherapy), epidemiology, immunology, endocrinology, biology, pathology, bioethics, palliative care, rehabilitation medicine, clinical trials research and decision making, as well as psychiatry and psychology. This international journal is published twelve times a year and will consider contributions to research of clinical and theoretical interest. Topics covered are wide-ranging and relate to the psychosocial aspects of cancer and AIDS-related tumors, including: epidemiology, quality of life, palliative and supportive care, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, social work, nursing and educational issues. Special reviews are offered from time to time. There is a section reviewing recently published books. A society news section is available for the dissemination of information relating to meetings, conferences and other society-related topics. Summary proceedings of important national and international symposia falling within the aims of the journal are presented.