Background: Population mammographic screening for breast cancer has led to large increases in the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Active surveillance has been proposed as a management strategy for low-risk DCIS to mitigate against potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, clinicians and patients remain reluctant to choose active surveillance, even within a trial setting. Re-calibration of the diagnostic threshold for low-risk DCIS and/or use of a label that does not include the word ‘cancer’ might encourage the uptake of active surveillance and other conservative treatment options. We aimed to identify and collate relevant epidemiological evidence to inform further discussion on these ideas. Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for low-risk DCIS studies in four categories: (1) natural history; (2) subclinical cancer found at autopsy; (3) diagnostic reproducibility (two or more pathologist interpretations at a single time point); and (4) diagnostic drift (two or more pathologist interpretations at different time points). Where we identified a pre-existing systematic review, the search was restricted to studies published after the inclusion period of the review. Two authors screened records, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. We undertook a narrative synthesis of the included evidence within each category. Results: Natural History (n = 11): one systematic review and nine primary studies were included, but only five provided evidence on the prognosis of women with low-risk DCIS. These studies reported that women with low-risk DCIS had comparable outcomes whether or not they had surgery. The risk of invasive breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 6.5% (7.5 years) to 10.8% (10 years). The risk of dying from breast cancer in patients with low-risk DCIS ranged from 1.2 to 2.2% (10 years). Subclinical cancer at autopsy (n = 1): one systematic review of 13 studies estimated the mean prevalence of subclinical in situ breast cancer to be 8.9%. Diagnostic reproducibility (n = 13): two systematic reviews and 11 primary studies found at most moderate agreement in differentiating low-grade DCIS from other diagnoses. Diagnostic drift: no studies found. Conclusion: Epidemiological evidence supports consideration of relabelling and/or recalibrating diagnostic thresholds for low-risk DCIS. Such diagnostic changes would need agreement on the definition of low-risk DCIS and improved diagnostic reproducibility.

University students consistently report poor sleep. We conducted a before-and-after study to evaluate the impact of an online 10-week course on undergraduate students’ sleep knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours at 6-month follow-up. Data were collected via baseline course surveys (August–September 2020) and follow-up surveys distributed via email (February–March 2021). n = 212 students completed baseline surveys and n = 75 (35%) completed follow-up. Students retained to follow-up possessed higher baseline sleep knowledge and received higher course grades. At the 6-month follow-up, sleep knowledge had increased (mean score out of 5: 3.0 vs. 4.2, p < 0.001). At baseline, 85% of students aimed to increase their sleep knowledge and 83% aimed to improve their sleep. At follow-up, 91% reported being more knowledgeable and 37% reported improved sleep. A novel Stages of Change item revealed that 53% of students’ attitudes towards their sleep behaviours had changed from baseline. There was a reduction in sleep latency at follow-up (mean 33.3 vs. 25.6 min, p = 0.015), but no change in the total Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score. In summary, completion of an online course led to increased sleep and circadian knowledge and changed sleep attitudes, with no meaningful change in sleep behaviours. Future interventions should consider components of behavioural change that go beyond the knowledge–attitudes–behaviour continuum.