Literature DB >> 18757624

Challenges of informed choice in organised screening.

W Østerlie1, M Solbjør, J-A Skolbekken, S Hofvind, A R Saetnan, S Forsmo.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Despite much research on informed choice and the individuals' autonomy in organised medical screening, little is known about the individuals' decision-making process as expressed in their own words.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the decision-making process among women invited to a mammography screening programme.
SETTING: Women living in the counties of Sør- and Nord-Trøndelag, Norway, invited to the first round of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) in 2003.
METHODS: Qualitative methods based on eight semistructured focus-group interviews with a total of 69 women aged 50-69 years.
RESULTS: The decision to attend mammography screening was not based on the information in the invitation letter and leaflet provided by the NBCSP. They perceived the invitation letter with a prescheduled appointment as if a decision for mammography had already been made. This was experienced as an aid in overcoming the postponements that easily occur in daily lives. The invitation to mammography screening was embraced as an indication of a responsible welfare state, "like a mother taking care."
CONCLUSION: In a welfare state where governmental institutions are trusted, mass screening for disease is acknowledged by screening participants as a valued expression of paternalism. Trust, gratitude, and convenience were more important factors than information about benefits, harms, and risks when the women made their decisions to attend screening. These elements should be included in the ethical debates on informed choice in preventive medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18757624     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.024802

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  11 in total

1.  Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening.

Authors:  Louise Moody; Kubra Choudhry
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Authors:  Anita L Iyer; M Kate Bundorf; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Pascale-Renée Cyr; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 3.  Benefits and harms of mammography screening.

Authors:  Magnus Løberg; Mette Lise Lousdal; Michael Bretthauer; Mette Kalager
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 6.466

4.  Informed choice about breast cancer prevention: randomized controlled trial of an online decision aid intervention.

Authors:  Ida J Korfage; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis; Peter A Ubel; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Sarah M Greene; Jennifer B McClure; Dylan M Smith; Sharon Hensley Alford; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 6.466

5.  Using an informed consent in mammography screening: a randomized trial.

Authors:  José M Baena-Cañada; Petra Rosado-Varela; Inmaculada Expósito-Álvarez; Macarena González-Guerrero; Juan Nieto-Vera; Encarnación Benítez-Rodríguez
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 4.452

6.  Ethnic minority women prefer strong recommendations to be screened for cancer.

Authors:  Laura A V Marlow; Susanne F Meisel; Jane Wardle
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  How a deliberative approach includes women in the decisions of screening mammography: a citizens' jury feasibility study in Andalusia, Spain.

Authors:  José M Baena-Cañada; Violeta Luque-Ribelles; Alicia Quílez-Cutillas; Petra Rosado-Varela; Encarnación Benítez-Rodríguez; Soledad Márquez-Calderón; Juan Manuel Rivera-Bautista
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.

Authors:  P R Cyr; K Pedersen; A L Iyer; M K Bundorf; J D Goldhaber-Fiebert; D Gyrd-Hansen; I S Kristiansen; E A Burger
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-06-23

9.  Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation.

Authors:  J Waller; A Macedo; C von Wagner; A E Simon; C Jones; V Hammersley; D Weller; J Wardle; C Campbell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Does the primary screening test influence women's anxiety and intention to screen for cervical cancer? A randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Authors:  Emily A Burger; Mari Nygård; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Tron Anders Moger; Ivar Sonbo Kristiansen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.