Cancer screening appointments are an opportunity to encourage positive behavioural changes. Up to 80% of cancer screening attendees are open to discussing physical activity during cancer screening, but some say this would deter them from future screening. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of individuals’ receptivity to physical activity advice at cancer screening.

Interview-based qualitative study.

The study was conducted from May 2017 to September 2018 in the UK. Participants were recruited using adverts on two university campuses, Facebook and a participant recruitment agency. To be eligible, participants had to have an upcoming cancer screening appointment within 2 weeks. There were 30 participants.

Participants recorded their receptivity to physical activity advice in the days before and after screening. Data-prompted semi-structured interviews explored these responses. Interviews were analysed using a thematic framework analysis.

Participants felt discussing physical activity at cancer screening would be relevant. However, participants experienced anxiety related to the screening process which could increase or decrease their receptivity. Participants felt if information was delivered in a judgemental way, it could negatively impact future screening participation.

Screening attendees’ receptivity could be influenced by the timing of a discussion and by their levels of anxiety throughout screening. Participants’ anxiety during screening can either reduce their ability to engage in a discussion or increase the relevance of the discussion. The communication style of the healthcare practitioner was key for why some screening attendees could be deterred from future cancer screening.

Most clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for assessing and managing people’s chronic pain focus on specific pain conditions, body sites or life course stages. This creates complexity for clinicians making care choices in the absence of a diagnosis and/or where a person experiences more than one pain condition. Specific to this context is the ICD-11 classification of chronic primary pain where an experience of pain cannot be better accounted for by another condition. CPGs for chronic primary pain, agnostic to condition or body part, may support clinicians towards best pain care since many of the principles of person-centred chronic pain care are transdiagnostic. The two aims of this systematic review are to (1) identify and appraise CPGs for chronic primary pain, relevant across the life course and (2) map the CPG content against a pain care priority framework to evaluate the extent to which the CPG content aligns with the priorities of people with lived chronic pain experience.

We will systematically search nine scholarly databases, the Epistemonikos database and international and national guidelines clearinghouses. CPGs published within 2015–2025, in any language, that offer recommendations about assessment and/or management of chronic primary pain for people of any age, excluding hospitalised inpatients or institutionalised populations, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen citations for eligibility and appraise CPG quality and implementation potential using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE)-II and the AGREE-Recommendations Excellence tools, respectively. Data extraction will include the citation and scope characteristics of each CPG, methods used to develop recommendations, verbatim recommendations, guiding principles or practice information and narrative excerpts related to the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) considerations (or equivalent). We will use the PROGRESS-PLUS framework as a checklist to identify whether determinants of health equity were considered by guideline developers. CPG recommendations will be organised according to common topics and categorised in a matrix according to strength and direction. Qualitative content analysis will be used to synthesise excerpts relating to GRADE EtD considerations (or equivalent), and we will map extracted data against an established chronic pain care priority framework to determine the extent to which the CPGs align with values and preferences of people with lived experience. Interpretation will be informed by an interdisciplinary Advisory Group, including lived experience partners.

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Results will be disseminated through publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, through professional societies, and integrated into education curricula and public-facing resources. Reporting will be consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.

CRD420251000482.