Literature DB >> 19332586

Informed choice requires information about both benefits and harms.

K J Jørgensen1, J Brodersen, O J Hartling, M Nielsen, P C Gøtzsche.   

Abstract

A study found that women participating in mammography screening were content with the programme and the paternalistic invitations that directly encourage participation and include a pre-specified time of appointment. We argue that this merely reflects that the information presented to the invited women is seriously biased in favour of participation. Women are not informed about the major harms of screening, and the decision to attend has already been made for them by a public authority. This short-circuits informed decision-making and the legislation on informed consent, and violates the autonomy of the women. Screening invitations must present both benefits and harms in a balanced fashion, and should offer, not encourage, participation. It should be stated clearly that the choice not to participate is as sensible as the choice to do so. To allow this to happen, the responsibility for the screening programmes must be separated from the responsibility for the information material.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19332586     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.027961

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


  10 in total

1.  Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective.

Authors:  C Kaniklidis
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 2.  Communication between patients and providers and informed decision making.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Pamela S Ganschow; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

3.  Chances and risks in medical risk communication.

Authors:  Ulrich Hoffrage; Michael Koller
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2015-07-09

4.  Communicating the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer screening needed for an informed choice: a systematic evaluation of leaflets and booklets.

Authors:  Maren Dreier; Birgit Borutta; Gabriele Seidel; Inga Münch; Silke Kramer; Jürgen Töppich; Marie-Luise Dierks; Ulla Walter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  A Review and Comparative Analysis of Information Targeted to the General Public on the Websites of Breast Screening Programs in Canada.

Authors:  Anne J Kearney; Julie Polisena; Andra Morrison
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2017-11

6.  Crowd-figure-pictograms improve women's knowledge about mammography screening: results from a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Maren Reder; Lau Caspar Thygesen
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2018-05-21

7.  Systematic evaluation of written health information on PSA based screening in Germany.

Authors:  Simone Beck; Birgit Borutta; Ulla Walter; Maren Dreier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Attributes in stated preference elicitation studies on colorectal cancer screening and their relative importance for decision-making among screenees: a systematic review.

Authors:  Melanie Brinkmann; Lara Marleen Fricke; Leonie Diedrich; Bernt-Peter Robra; Christian Krauth; Maren Dreier
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2022-09-22

9.  Preconceptions influence women's perceptions of information on breast cancer screening: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen; Ann Dorrit Guassora; John Brodersen
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-09-03

10.  Meta-analysis of breast cancer mortality benefit and overdiagnosis adjusted for adherence: improving information on the effects of attending screening mammography.

Authors:  Gemma Jacklyn; Paul Glasziou; Petra Macaskill; Alexandra Barratt
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 7.640

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.