Table 5.

Juries' feedback on the main research question (which approach[es] to inviting people to screening are acceptable).

	Verdict
Jury 1	P8: Everybody agreed that screening was essential, but that the more targeted it could be, the better. And that on its own, none of the four elements that are in the first bullet‐point work independently, that it needed to be a combination of all four of them, with the caveat that gender‐based screening, unless it's cancer‐specific, is not acceptable.a
Jury 2	P17: I think we were comfortable with the various strata to be used in the collation and so forth but I think we felt that family history, genetics, ethnicity were significantly more important than age particularly… it would've been better to concentrate more on the genetic make‐up of people and their family history rather than age alone and to make it more targeted from that point of view.
Jury 3	P27: There seemed to be sort of a few camps. Four of us wanted to keep it as it is, the screening process, so just by age and sex. And then there was a second camp which wanted to use the complex risk score but taking some of those factors out, specifically lifestyle factors. So two wanted a complete complex risk score with everything that that involved. Three of us wanted a complex risk score without lifestyle factors, so BMI and smoking but everything else. And one of us wanted a complex risk score without BMI and no family history involved.

Abbreviation: BMI, body mass index.

^a Age, sex, lifestyle characteristics and genetics.