Juliet A Usher‐Smith

Biographic Data

ID	7744895
NAME	Juliet A Usher‐Smith
GIVEN NAMES	Juliet A
FAMILY NAME	Usher‐Smith
SIGNATURE	SMITH J A U
AFFILIATIONS	University of Cambridge
ORCID	0000-0002-8501-2531
VERIFIED	Yes
TOTAL WORKS	14
TOTAL CITATIONS	0
AUTHOR COUNT	14
EDITOR COUNT	0
FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR	2015
LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR	2025
H-INDEX	0

Assessing the Quality of Community Jury Deliberations in Online and In‐Person Community Juries Using a Deductive Coding Framework
Open AccessHanan Abukmail, Rebecca A Dennison et al.ARTICLEHealth Expectations2025
INTRODUCTION: Community juries require participants to engage in group deliberations, seeking to reach a consensus or verdict on the research question(s). Community juries have traditionally taken place in-person, although holding them online or in a hybrid format is increasingly common, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic. In order for the community jury method to be used successfully, it is crucial to ensure that the goals of the delib…
Societal views on using risk-based innovations to inform cancer screening and referral policies: Findings from three community juries
Open AccessRebecca A Dennison, Reanna J Clune et al.ARTICLEBMC Public Health2025
Informed members of the public supported the concept of using innovations to estimate cancer risk and inform healthcare. Their priorities for accuracy, data security, participation burden, and personal liberty and choice tended to overlap with those of developers and policymakers. Work to ready these innovations for implementation should continue, with the public's priorities accounted for in their development and dissemination in order to addres…
Understanding the Preferences and Considerations of the Public Towards Risk‐Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Insights From Think‐Aloud Interviews Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment
Open AccessRebecca A Dennison, Reanna J Clune et al.ARTICLEHealth Expectations2024
CONTEXT: Risk stratification has been suggested as a strategy for improving cancer screening. Any changes to existing programmes must be acceptable to the public. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the preferences and considerations of individuals relating to the introduction of different risk-based strategies to determine eligibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. STUDY DESIGN: Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE…
Acceptability of risk stratification within population‐based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed‐methods systematic review
Open AccessLily C Taylor, Alan Hutchinson et al.ARTICLEHealth Expectations2023
Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: A community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs
Open AccessLily C Taylor, Rebecca A Dennison et al.ARTICLEBMC Public Health2023
From the perspective of public acceptability, risk stratification using current data could be implemented immediately, ahead of more complex strategies. Collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also considered acceptable but the practicalities of collecting such data and how the programme would be communicated require careful consideration
A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening
Open AccessRebecca A Dennison, Rachel A Boscott et al.ARTICLEHealth Expectations2022
INTRODUCTION: Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies. METHODS: We conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in …
Developing training and opportunities for students in systematic reviews
Open AccessJuliet A Usher‐Smith, Hannah Harrison et al.ARTICLEMedical Education2021
Systematic reviews are a key component of evidence-based healthcare. Being able to conduct a systematic review is a core skill for clinical researchers and the ability to find and appraise evidence is important for all clinicians. While elements of the systematic review process are often included in medical school curricula, we believe that there is scope for additional bespoke training
Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population‐based survey
Open AccessJuliet A Usher‐Smith, Laragh L W Harvey‐Kelly et al.ARTICLEHealth Expectations2021
BACKGROUND: Using risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility has the potential to improve efficiency of screening. OBJECTIVES: To compare the public acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different approaches to determine eligibility for screening. DESIGN: An online population-based survey of 668 adults in the UK aged 45-79 including a series of scenarios in the context of a potential kidney cancer screening programme …
Incorporating a brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change into primary care: A multi-methods pilot study
Open AccessKatie Mills, Ben E Paxton et al.ARTICLEBMC Public Health2021
Incorporating a risk-based intervention to promote behaviour change for cancer prevention into primary care consultations is feasible and acceptable to both patients and HCPs. A randomised trial is now needed to assess the effect on health behaviours. When designing that trial, and other prevention activities within primary care, it is necessary to consider challenges around patient recruitment, the HCP contact time needed for delivery of interve…
A randomised controlled trial of the effect of providing online risk information and lifestyle advice for the most common preventable cancers: Study protocol
Open AccessJuliet A Usher‐Smith, Golnessa Masson et al.ARTICLEBMC Public Health2018
ISRCTN17450583. Registered 30 January 2018
The association between psychosocial factors and change in lifestyle behaviour following lifestyle advice and information about cardiovascular disease risk
Open AccessRebecca A Dennison, Adina L Feldman et al.ARTICLEBMC Public Health2018
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015
Responses to provision of personalised cancer risk information: A qualitative interview study with members of the public
Open AccessJuliet A Usher‐Smith, Barbora Šilarova et al.ARTICLEBMC Public Health2017
Provision of personalised cancer risk was well received and may be a useful addition to other cancer prevention initiatives. Further work is needed in particular to develop ways to present cancer risk that reflect the general perception of what constitutes a risk high enough to motivate behaviour change and help patients contextualise a less well known health risk by providing a frame of reference
The response to receiving phenotypic and genetic coronary heart disease risk scores and lifestyle advice – a qualitative study
Open AccessGuy Shefer, Barbora Šilarova et al.ARTICLEBMC Public Health2016
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015
Information and Risk Modification Trial (Inform): Design of a randomised controlled trial of communicating different types of information about coronary heart disease risk, alongside lifestyle advice,…
Open AccessBarbora Šilarova, Joanne Lucas et al.ARTICLEBMC Public Health2015
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015