Literature DB >> 19326299

Screening in the dark: ethical considerations of providing screening tests to individuals when evidence is insufficient to support screening populations.

Ingrid M Burger1, Nancy E Kass.   

Abstract

During the past decade, screening tests using computed tomography (CT) have disseminated into practice and been marketed to patients despite neither conclusive evidence nor professional agreement about their efficacy and cost-effectiveness at the population level. This phenomenon raises questions about physicians' professional roles and responsibilities within the setting of medical innovation, as well as the appropriate scope of patient autonomy and access to unproven screening technology. This article explores how physicians ought to respond when new screening examinations that lack conclusive evidence of overall population benefit emerge in the marketplace and are requested by individual patients. To this end, the article considers the nature of evidence and how it influences decision-making for screening at both the public policy and individual patient levels. We distinguish medical and ethical differences between screening recommended for a population and screening considered on an individual patient basis. Finally, we discuss specific cases to explore how evidence, patient risk factors and preferences, and physician judgment ought to balance when making individual patient screening decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19326299      PMCID: PMC3115566          DOI: 10.1080/15265160902790583

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Bioeth        ISSN: 1526-5161            Impact factor:   11.229


  68 in total

1.  Experimental treatments. Unapproved but not always unavailable. Last option for the desperately ill.

Authors:  L Thompson
Journal:  FDA Consum       Date:  2000 Jan-Feb

Review 2.  Medical screening and the value of early detection. When unwarranted faith leads to unethical recommendations.

Authors:  H M Malm
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.683

3.  Women's understanding of the mammography screening debate.

Authors:  S Woloshin; L M Schwartz; S J Byram; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2000-05-22

4.  Should we screen for familial intracranial aneurysm?

Authors:  F Crawley; A Clifton; M M Brown
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 7.914

5.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising and the public.

Authors:  R A Bell; R L Kravitz; M S Wilkes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Perceived determinants of risk for breast cancer and the relations among objective risk, perceived risk, and screening behavior over time.

Authors:  L S Aiken; A M Fenaughty; S G West; J J Johnson; T L Luckett
Journal:  Womens Health       Date:  1995

7.  Risks and benefits of screening for intracranial aneurysms in first-degree relatives of patients with sporadic subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-10-28       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  R J Volk; A R Cass; S J Spann
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug

9.  What should men know about prostate-specific antigen screening before giving informed consent?

Authors:  E C Chan; D P Sulmasy
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.965

10.  Limitations of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance angiography in the diagnosis of intracranial aneurysms.

Authors:  Kristin E Schwab; Philippe Gailloud; Gerald Wyse; Rafael J Tamargo
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  4 in total

1.  Patient autonomy and choice in healthcare: self-testing devices as a case in point.

Authors:  Anna-Marie Greaney; Dónal P O'Mathúna; P Anne Scott
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2012-11

2.  Variations in screening and management practices for subsequent asymptomatic meningiomas in childhood, adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.

Authors:  Lisanne C Verbruggen; Melissa M Hudson; Daniel C Bowers; Cécile M Ronckers; Gregory T Armstrong; Roderick Skinner; Eelco W Hoving; Geert O Janssens; Helena J H van der Pal; Leontine C M Kremer; Renée L Mulder
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 4.130

3.  Long-term renal function in living kidney donors with simple renal cysts: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Madeleine M Waldram; Alvin G Thomas; Yifan Yu; Courtenay M Holscher; Anh Q Nguyen; Samantha E Halpern; Shane Ottman; Abimereki D Muzaale; Macey L Henderson; Krista L Lentine; Fawaz Al Ammary; Daniel C Brennan; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang; Dorry L Segev; Allan B Massie
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 2.863

Review 4.  The promise of public health ethics for precision medicine: the case of newborn preventive genomic sequencing.

Authors:  Ainsley J Newson
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2021-03-14       Impact factor: 4.132

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.