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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Standard

Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening. / Kolthoff, Sie Karen; Hestbech, Mie Sara; Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl; Brodersen, John.

In: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 109, No. 7, 07.2016, p. 274-281.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

Kolthoff, SK, Hestbech, MS, Jørgensen, KJ & Brodersen, J 2016, 'Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening', Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 274-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076816643324

APA

Kolthoff, S. K., Hestbech, M. S., Jørgensen, K. J., & Brodersen, J. (2016). Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 109(7), 274-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076816643324

Vancouver

Kolthoff SK, Hestbech MS, Jørgensen KJ, Brodersen J. Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2016 Jul;109(7):274-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076816643324

Author

Kolthoff, Sie Karen ; Hestbech, Mie Sara ; Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl ; Brodersen, John. / Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening. In: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 109, No. 7. pp. 274-281.

Bibtex

@article{781dc1399b0b42fe85d7bb59b6d1d595,
title = "Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice?: A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening",
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.",
keywords = "Australasia, Canada, Consumer Health Information, Cross-Sectional Studies, Decision Making, Early Detection of Cancer, Female, Humans, Information Dissemination, Patient Participation, Risk Assessment, Scandinavian and Nordic Countries, United Kingdom, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Journal Article",
author = "Kolthoff, {Sie Karen} and Hestbech, {Mie Sara} and J{\o}rgensen, {Karsten Juhl} and John Brodersen",
note = "{\circledC} The Royal Society of Medicine.",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1177/0141076816643324",
language = "English",
volume = "109",
pages = "274--281",
journal = "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine",
issn = "0141-0768",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice?

T2 - A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening

AU - Kolthoff, Sie Karen

AU - Hestbech, Mie Sara

AU - Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl

AU - Brodersen, John

N1 - © The Royal Society of Medicine.

PY - 2016/7

Y1 - 2016/7

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Australasia

KW - Canada

KW - Consumer Health Information

KW - Cross-Sectional Studies

KW - Decision Making

KW - Early Detection of Cancer

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Information Dissemination

KW - Patient Participation

KW - Risk Assessment

KW - Scandinavian and Nordic Countries

KW - United Kingdom

KW - Uterine Cervical Neoplasms

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1177/0141076816643324

DO - 10.1177/0141076816643324

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 27118696

VL - 109

SP - 274

EP - 281

JO - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

JF - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

SN - 0141-0768

IS - 7

ER -

ID: 171657185