Literature DB >> 8719153

Public understanding of medical screening.

J Cockburn1, S Redman, D Hill, E Henry.   

Abstract

AIM: To estimate the extent of public understanding of mass screening for disease and of the benefits and limitations of screening.
METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted with a national sample of 835 Australians.
RESULTS: Of total respondents, 68% claimed to have heard of screening tests, but only 21% correctly understood that screening tests are for asymptomatic people. This understanding was related to education. The most frequently named tests were mammography (51%) and Pap tests (33%), and for all age groups these were mentioned by more women than men. Around 27% of respondents thought that the Pap test would detect 95% or more of case, 45% thought the test would detect 90% or more, while 60% of respondents thought the test would detect 80% or more of cases. Around 29% of respondents thought that mammography would detect 95% or more of cases, 49% thought the test would detect 90% or more, while 65% of respondents thought the test would detect 80% or more of cases. Of all respondents, 33% favoured compensation when cases were "missed" by screening provided people were warned beforehand, 58% were not in favour, and 9% were unsure.
CONCLUSIONS: There are misconceptions among the public concerning the purpose of screening and the accuracy of screening tests. However, most people accept that some cases of disease will be missed by screening and that if people are adequately informed beforehand compensation should not automatically follow for those whose disease is missed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8719153     DOI: 10.1177/096914139500200410

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  10 in total

1.  Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficult--but many misconceptions need to be undone.

Authors:  J Austoker
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

2.  Perceived sensitivity of mammographic screening: women's views on test accuracy and financial compensation for missed cancers.

Authors:  A Barratt; J Cockburn; C Furnival; A McBride; L Mallon
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 3.  How can we develop a cost-effective quality cervical screening programme?

Authors:  Sue Wilson; Helen Lester
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Reactions to a targeted intervention to increase fecal occult blood testing among average-risk adults waiting for screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  S Elizabeth McGregor; Paul Ritvo; Jill Tinmouth; Ashley Kornblum; Ronald Myers; Robert J Hilsden; Lawrence F Paszat; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  Psychological consequences for parents of false negative results on prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: retrospective interview study.

Authors:  S Hall; M Bobrow; T M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-02-12

Review 6.  Screening in Public Health and Clinical Care: Similarities and Differences in Definitions, Types, and Aims - A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mark Speechley; Abraham Kunnilathu; Eby Aluckal; M S Balakrishna; Benoy Mathew; Eldhose K George
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-03-01

7.  Public perceptions of communicating information about bowel cancer screening.

Authors:  Chris Woodrow; Eila Watson; Linda Rozmovits; Ronald Parker; Joan Austoker
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women's willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  P Adab; T Marshall; A Rouse; B Randhawa; H Sangha; N Bhangoo
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): trial protocol.

Authors:  Eleanor Mann; A Toby Prevost; Simon Griffin; Ian Kellar; Stephen Sutton; Michael Parker; Simon Sanderson; Ann Louise Kinmonth; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  The 2003 Australian Breast Health Survey: survey design and preliminary results.

Authors:  Elmer V Villanueva; Sandra Jones; Caroline Nehill; Simone Favelle; David Steel; Donald Iverson; Helen Zorbas
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 3.295

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.