Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening

Sie Karen Kolthoff*, Mie Sara Hestbech, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, John Brodersen

*Kontaktforfatter

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether invitations for publicly funded cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable an informed choice about participation. Design: Cross-sectional study using a checklist of 23 information items on benefits and harms from cervical screening and the risks related to cervical cancer. Material: Invitations to publicly funded cervical screening in 10 Scandinavian and English-speaking countries. Setting: Ten Scandinavian and English speaking countries. Participants: Sixteen screening units representing 10 Scandinavian and English speaking countries. Main outcome measures: Number of information items presented in invitations for cervical screening. Results: We contacted 21 coordinating units from 11 countries and 20 (95%) responded. Of these, four units did not issue invitations, but the remaining 16 coordinating units in 10 different countries supplied a sample. The invitations for cervical screening were generally information poor and contained a median of only four out of 23 information items possible (17%), ranging from 0 to 12 (0–52%). The most important harms of cancer screening, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, were typically downplayed or unmentioned. The same applied to other important harms, such as false-positive results and the psychological consequences from an abnormal test result. The majority of invitations took a paternalistic approach. While only two invitations (17%) included a pre-assigned appointment date, eight (70%) of the invitations contained strong appeals for participation. Conclusions: Invitations to cervical cancer screening were information poor and biased in favour of participation. This means that informed choice is not possible, which is in conflict with modern requirements for personal involvement in medical decisions.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Vol/bind109
Udgave nummer7
Sider (fra-til)274-281
ISSN0141-0768
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 1. jul. 2016
Udgivet eksterntJa

Bibliografisk note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, © The Royal Society of Medicine.

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater