Literature DB >> 11359539

Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?

A E Raffle1.   

Abstract

For many years, public information about screening has been aimed at achieving high uptake but concerns are now being raised about this approach. There are several problems that have prompted these concerns. By giving information that emphasizes only the positive aspects of screening the autonomy of individuals is ignored, individuals feel angry when they perceive that they are let down by screening, symptoms may be disregarded because of the belief that screening gives full protection, health service staff carry the blame for problems that are in fact inherent in screening, and sound debate about policy and investment in screening is hampered by misunderstanding about the benefits and costs of screening. If we adopt instead an approach that makes explicit the limitations and adverse effects then a different set of problems will be encountered. We risk a reduction in uptake of screening and thus population benefits may reduce, those most likely to be deterred from accepting screening may be the most socially disadvantaged, there will be a cost in terms of staff time to explain screening more fully to participants, and cost-effectiveness could be reduced if uptake falls so low as to make services barely viable. In the UK current General Medical Council (GMC) advice to doctors about informed consent for screening makes it clear that full information should be given. The UK National Screening Committee has also signalled the need for a changed approach to information giving so that individuals are offered a choice based on appreciation of risks and benefits. It will take time for this approach to be fully reflected across the full range of UK screening programmes. New national information will be needed to assist staff in giving full information, and some aspects of policy, such as screening coverage targets for Health Authorities and General Practitioners, will need to be altered. There are many questions still to be answered about the kind of information needed to achieve informed participation, and about how it should be framed and communicated. These questions can begin to be addressed when there is clarity at national level about the purpose of information about screening.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11359539      PMCID: PMC5060056          DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00138.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  11 in total

1.  Government orders inquiry into removal of children's organs.

Authors:  C Dyer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-12-11

2.  Predictive testing for Huntington's disease: the calm after the storm.

Authors:  M R Hayden
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-12-09       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficult--but many misconceptions need to be undone.

Authors:  J Austoker
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

Review 4.  Bridging the knowledge gap and communicating uncertainties for informed consent in cervical cytology screening; we need unbiased information and a culture change.

Authors:  C M Anderson; J Nottingham
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.073

5.  Cervical screening.

Authors:  S Harman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-01-29       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-09-13

7.  Accelerated decline in cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales.

Authors:  P Sasieni; J Cuzick; E Farmery
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-12-09       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Informed consent to undergo serum screening for Down's syndrome: the gap between policy and practice.

Authors:  D K Smith; R W Shaw; T M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-09-24

9.  Response of women aged 65-74 to invitation for screening for breast cancer by mammography: a pilot study in London, UK.

Authors:  D Horton Taylor; K McPherson; S Parbhoo; N Perry
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for?

Authors:  A E Raffle; B Alden; E F Mackenzie
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-06-10       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  47 in total

1.  Participation in screening programmes.

Authors:  V Entwistle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  Cancer screening.

Authors:  A Barratt; P Mannes; L Irwig; L Trevena; J Craig; L Rychetnik
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 3.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Silvana Unigwe; Glyn Elwyn; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

4.  Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-17

Review 5.  Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening.

Authors:  Alexandra Barratt; Lyndal Trevena; Heather M Davey; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-08-28

6.  Newborn screening education on the internet: a content analysis of North American newborn screening program websites.

Authors:  Makda H Araia; Beth K Potter
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-04-15

7.  Commentary: a sociologist's view on community genetics.

Authors:  Aviad E Raz
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2010-02-25

Review 8.  Carrier screening for beta-thalassaemia: a review of international practice.

Authors:  Nicole E Cousens; Clara L Gaff; Sylvia A Metcalfe; Martin B Delatycki
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Effects of personalized colorectal cancer risk information on laypersons' interest in colorectal cancer screening: The importance of individual differences.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Christine W Duarte; Susannah Daggett; Andrea Siewers; Bill Killam; Kahsi A Smith; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-07-19

Review 10.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.