Marlou Bijlsma1, Annemarieke Rendering2, Neil Chin-On3, Anna Debska4, Lawrence von Karsa5, Jörn Knöpnadel6, Leo van Rossum7, A Cecile J W Janssens8. 1. Netherlands Standardization Institute, Vlinderweg 6, 2623 AX Delft, The Netherlands. 2. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Public Health Department, Rijnstraat 50, 2500 EJ The Hague, The Netherlands. 3. LEO Pharma bv, General Management, John M Keynesplein 5, 1066 EP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene, Department of Health Promotion and Postgraduate Education, 24 Chocimska str., 00-791 Warsaw, Poland. 5. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Quality Assurance Group Early Detection and Prevention Section, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France. 6. National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Dezernat 4, Berlin, Germany. 7. Health Council of the Netherlands, Rijnstraat 50, 2515 XP Den Haag, The Netherlands. 8. Erasmus University Medical Center, Department of Epidemiology, Dr Molewaterplein 50-60, 3015 GA Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, 1518 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: cecile.janssens@emory.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Health checks may empower individuals to take better care of their health, but they may incorporate risks of incorrect test results, overdiagnosis and overtreatment as well. Some health checks are strictly regulated, such as in many of the national screening programs, but the ones offered outside such programs and in the commercial domain, are not. We developed a European consensus agreement for quality criteria. METHOD: Quality criteria were developed with the contribution of 43 experts from 16 European countries and 8 European organizations. A working group drafted a proposal, which was revised in several rounds of internal and external review by a multidisciplinary group of experts. RESULT: The quality criteria address the provision of information, communication and informed consent, predictive ability and utility of the test, and quality assurance. CONCLUSION: The consensus agreement on the quality of health checks aim to enhance informed decision making in clients and protects the affordability of the health care system. The criteria can be developed further into a formal standard and regulation if such authority is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Health checks may empower individuals to take better care of their health, but they may incorporate risks of incorrect test results, overdiagnosis and overtreatment as well. Some health checks are strictly regulated, such as in many of the national screening programs, but the ones offered outside such programs and in the commercial domain, are not. We developed a European consensus agreement for quality criteria. METHOD: Quality criteria were developed with the contribution of 43 experts from 16 European countries and 8 European organizations. A working group drafted a proposal, which was revised in several rounds of internal and external review by a multidisciplinary group of experts. RESULT: The quality criteria address the provision of information, communication and informed consent, predictive ability and utility of the test, and quality assurance. CONCLUSION: The consensus agreement on the quality of health checks aim to enhance informed decision making in clients and protects the affordability of the health care system. The criteria can be developed further into a formal standard and regulation if such authority is warranted.