Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow BJGP Open on Instagram
  • Visit bjgp open on Bluesky
  • Blog
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
Research

Evaluating whether Prostate Cancer UK’s risk checker is a help or hindrance to prostate-specific antigen testing policy: a mixed-methods study

Natalia Norori, Chiara de Biase, Yui Hang Wong, Sadie Robson Crabtree, Matt Cox, Esther Appleby, Andrew Seggie, Rachel Brown and Amy Rylance
BJGP Open 2024; 8 (2): BJGPO.2024.0040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0040
Natalia Norori
1 Prostate Cancer UK, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Natalia Norori
  • For correspondence: Natalia.Norori@prostatecanceruk.org
Chiara de Biase
1 Prostate Cancer UK, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yui Hang Wong
1 Prostate Cancer UK, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sadie Robson Crabtree
1 Prostate Cancer UK, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matt Cox
1 Prostate Cancer UK, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Esther Appleby
2 Southeast London Cancer Alliance, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Seggie
1 Prostate Cancer UK, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel Brown
3 Bristol Inner City Primary Care Network and Montpelier Health Centre, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amy Rylance
1 Prostate Cancer UK, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1. Risk checker information flow for men who have one or more of the three main risk factors for prostate cancer. PSA = prostate-specific antigen.
  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2. Monthly proportion of men who answered if the risk checker helped them decide whether to have a PSA blood test or not, January 2022–May 2023. PSA = prostate-specific antigen.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Risk checker user characteristics
    CharacteristicsVersion 2Version 3
    April 2021–December 2021January 2022–May 2023
    n % n %
    Total population 118 332100.01 080 029100.0
    Men with prostate cancer risk factors 94 81480.1859 84279.6
    Men without prostate cancer risk factors 23 51819.9220 18720.4
    Age, years
    <4515 42313.0135 71512.6
    45–4910 3438.7107 2939.9
    50–5416 54514.0178 29216.5
    55–5917 48814.8186 79017.3
    60–6419 53316.5165 08115.3
    65–6917 11514.5132 27612.2
    ≥7021 88518.5174 58316.2
    Ethnicity
    Black or Mixed Black49674.249 5644.6
    Not Black or Mixed Black113 36595.81 030 46695.4
    Family history of prostate cancer
    Yes16 70414.1146 86013.6
    No101 62885.9933 17086.4

Supplementary Data

  • NN_10.3399BJGPO.2024.0040_supp.pdf -

    Supplementary material is not copyedited or typeset, and is published as supplied by the author(s). The author(s) retain(s) responsibility for its accuracy.

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 8, Issue 2
July 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluating whether Prostate Cancer UK’s risk checker is a help or hindrance to prostate-specific antigen testing policy: a mixed-methods study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Evaluating whether Prostate Cancer UK’s risk checker is a help or hindrance to prostate-specific antigen testing policy: a mixed-methods study
Natalia Norori, Chiara de Biase, Yui Hang Wong, Sadie Robson Crabtree, Matt Cox, Esther Appleby, Andrew Seggie, Rachel Brown, Amy Rylance
BJGP Open 2024; 8 (2): BJGPO.2024.0040. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0040

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Evaluating whether Prostate Cancer UK’s risk checker is a help or hindrance to prostate-specific antigen testing policy: a mixed-methods study
Natalia Norori, Chiara de Biase, Yui Hang Wong, Sadie Robson Crabtree, Matt Cox, Esther Appleby, Andrew Seggie, Rachel Brown, Amy Rylance
BJGP Open 2024; 8 (2): BJGPO.2024.0040. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0040
del.icio.us logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • How this fits in
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • prostate cancer
  • prostatic neoplasms
  • prostate-specific antigen
  • informed choice
  • male

More in this TOC Section

  • How does decontextualised risk information affect clinicians understanding of risk and uncertainty in primary care diagnosis? A qualitative study of clinical vignettes
  • Declining number of home visits to older adults by GPs: an observational study using data from electronic health records in The Netherlands, 2017–2023
  • What’s been tried: a curated catalogue of efforts to improve access to general practice
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2025 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795