Literature DB >> 33428025

Overdiagnosis: one concept, three perspectives, and a model.

Bjørn Hofmann1,2, Lynette Reid3, Stacy Carter4, Wendy Rogers5.   

Abstract

Defining, estimating, communicating about, and dealing with overdiagnosis is challenging. One reason for this is because overdiagnosis is a complex phenomenon. In this article we try to show that the complexity can be analysed and addressed in terms of three perspectives, i.e., that of the person, the professional, and the population. Individuals are informed about overdiagnosis based on population-based estimates. These estimates depend on professionals' conceptions and models of disease and diagnostic criteria. These conceptions in turn depend on individuals' experience of suffering, and on population level outcomes from diagnostics and treatment. As the personal, professional, and populational perspectives are not easy to reconcile, we must address them explicitly and facilitate interaction. Population-based estimates of overdiagnosis must be more directly informed by personal need for information. So must disease definitions and diagnostic criteria. Only then can individuals be appropriately informed about overdiagnosis.

Keywords:  Criteria; Diagnosis; Disease; Epidemiology; Overdiagnosis

Year:  2021        PMID: 33428025     DOI: 10.1007/s10654-020-00706-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  19 in total

1.  Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Shining Light Into the Modeling Abyss.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Roman Gulati
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-12-17       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Medicalization and overdiagnosis: different but alike.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-06

3.  The overdiagnosis of what? On the relationship between the concepts of overdiagnosis, disease, and diagnosis.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2017-12

4.  Overdiagnostic uncertainty.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 8.082

5.  Diagnosing overdiagnosis: conceptual challenges and suggested solutions.

Authors:  Bjorn Hofmann
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 8.082

6.  A definition and ethical evaluation of overdiagnosis: response to commentaries.

Authors:  Stacy M Carter; Jenny Doust; Chris Degeling; Alexandra Barratt
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  Getting clearer on overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Wendy A Rogers; Yishai Mintzker
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 8.  Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening-a systematic review.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 9.  Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening.

Authors:  Rianne de Gelder; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jacques Fracheboud; Gerrit Draisma; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 6.222

10.  Medicalisation and Overdiagnosis: What Society Does to Medicine.

Authors:  Wieteke van Dijk; Marjan J Faber; Marit A C Tanke; Patrick P T Jeurissen; Gert P Westert
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2016-11-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.