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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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