Literature DB >> 9650108

Reaching targets in the national cervical screening programme: are current practices unethical?

P Foster1, C M Anderson.   

Abstract

The principle of informed consent is now well established within the National Health Service (NHS) in relation to any type of medical treatment. However, this ethical principle appears to be far less well established in relation to medical screening programmes such as Britain's national cervical screening programme. This article will critically examine the case for health care providers vigorously pursuing women to accept an invitation to be screened. It will discuss the type of information which women would need in order to make an informed decision about whether or not to be screened. The lack of such information in current patient leaflets on the "smear test" will then be documented. Finally, the article will explore possible ways of maximising women's autonomy in relation to the cervical screening programme without sacrificing any of its main benefits.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Health Care and Public Health; National Health Service; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9650108      PMCID: PMC1377516          DOI: 10.1136/jme.24.3.151

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


  6 in total

1.  Inequalities in health: what health systems can and cannot do.

Authors:  P Foster
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1996-07

2.  Why is preventive medicine exempted from ethical constraints?

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Cervical smears: a questionable practice?

Authors:  J S McCormick
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1989-07-22       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Cervical cancer in nuns and prostitutes: a plea for scientific continence.

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Women's knowledge and experience of cervical screening: a failure of health education and medical organization.

Authors:  M Schwartz; W Savage; J George; L Emohare
Journal:  Community Med       Date:  1989-11

6.  Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for?

Authors:  A E Raffle; B Alden; E F Mackenzie
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-06-10       Impact factor: 79.321

  6 in total
  13 in total

Review 1.  Increasing informed uptake and non-uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review.

Authors:  R G Jepson; C A Forbes; A J Sowden; R A Lewis
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Women must be given fully informed information about cervical screening.

Authors:  J Nottingham
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-06-05

3.  Helping doctors with disabilities succeed in medicine.

Authors:  Ruth Chambers; Rhona MacDonald; Stewart Mercer
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  An oral history of general practice 6: Beyond the practice: the changing relationship with secondary care.

Authors:  Graham Smith; Malcolm Nicolson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Care or control in the community?

Authors:  Helen Lester
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Informed consent for mammography screening: modelling the risks and benefits for American women.

Authors:  Tom Marshall
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented.

Authors:  A E Raffle; B Alden; M Quinn; P J Babb; M T Brett
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-04-26

8.  Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma.

Authors:  E Chamot; T V Perneger
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 9.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.