Challenges of informed choice in organised screening

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 34, Issue 9, 2008, Pages

  Osterlie W ^a   Solbjor M ^a   Skolbekken, J A ^a   Hofvind, S ^b   Saetnan A R ^a   Forsmo, S ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b CANCER REGISTRY OF NORWAY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BREAST TUMOR; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TIME;

AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 56749154359     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.024802     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Tornberg SA. Screening for early detection of cancer - ethical aspects. Acta Oncol 1999;38:77-81.
2. General Medical Council. Seeking patients' consent: The ethical considerations. http://www.gmc-uk org/guidance/current/library/consent asp (accessed 8 Feb 2008).
3. Perry N, Broeders M, de WC, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition summary document. Ann Oncol 2008;19:614-22.
4. Boulton M, Parker M. Informed consent in a changing environment. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:2187-98.
5. Helgesson G, Ludvigsson J, Gustafsson SU. How to handle informed consent in longitudinal studies when participants have a limited understanding of the study. J Med Ethics 2005;31:670-3.
6. Rimer BK, Briss PA, Zeller PK, et al. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer 2004;101: 1214-28.
7. Mackenzie C, Stoljar N. Autonomy Refigured. In: Mackenzie C, Stoljar N, eds. Relational autonomy. Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000:3-31.
8. Goyder E, Barratt A, Irwig LM. Telling people about screening programmes and screening test results: how can we do it better? J Med Screen 2000;7:123-6.
9. Lawrence VA, Streiner D, Hazuda HP, et al. A cross-cultural consumer-based decision aid for screening mammography. Prev Med 2000;30:200-8.
10. Irwig L, McCaffery K, Salkeld G, et al. Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation. BMJ 2006;332:1148-50.
11. Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson AG, et al. How should we measure informed choice? The case of cancer screening. J Med Ethics 2005;31:192-6.
12. Thornton H, Edwards A, Baum M. Women need better information about routine mammography. BMJ 2003;327:101-3.
13. Fox R. Informed choice in screening programmes: do leaflets help? A critical literature review. J Public Health 2006;28:309-17.
14. Coulter A. Evidence based patient information. is important, so there needs to be a national strategy to ensure it. BMJ 1998;317:225-6.
15. Slaytor EK, Ward JE. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. BMJ 1998;317:263-4.
16. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ 2004;328:148.
17. Pfeffer N. If you think you've got a lump, they'll screen you. Informed consent, health promotion, and breast cancer. J Med Ethics 2004;30:227-30.
18. Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft RE, Jackson CJ, et al. Beyond "misunderstanding": written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:2212-22.
19. Chamot E, Charvet AI, Perneger TV. Variability in women's desire for information about mammography screening: implications for informed consent. Eur J Cancer Prev 2005;14:413-18.
20. Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson A, et al. Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: a qualitative study in the UK. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:890-9.
21. Lagerlund M, Widmark C, Lambe M, et al. Rationales for attending or not attending mammography screening - a focus group study among women in Sweden. Eur J Cancer Prev 2001;10:429-42.
22. Silverman E, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, et al. Women's views on breast cancer risk and screening mammography: a qualitative interview study. Med Decis Making 2001;21:231-40.
23. Dodds S. Choice and control in feminist bioethics. In: Mackenzie C, Stoljar N, eds. Relational autonomy. Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000:213-35.
24. Zussman R. Sociological perspectives on medical ethics and decision-making. Annu Rev Sociol 1997;23:171-89.
25. Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek PM, et al. Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol 2007;22:447-55.
26. Holm S, Liss PE, Norheim OF. Access to health care in the Scandinavian countries: ethical aspects. Health Care Anal 1999;7:321-30.
27. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995;311:299-302.
28. Solbjør M, Østerlie W, Skolbekken JA, et al. Focus groups in a medicine-dominated field: compromises or quality improvements? Int J Qual Meth 2007;6:45-56.
29. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography. BMJ 2006;332:538-41.
30. Zapka JG, Geller BM, Bulliard JL, et al. Print information to inform decisions about mammography screening participation in 16 countries with population-based programs. Patient Educ Couns 2006;63:126-37.
31. Solbjør M. "You have to have trust in those pictures." A perspective on women's experiences of mammography screening. In: Brownlie J, Green A, Howson A, eds. Researching trust and health. New York: Routledge, 2008:54-71.
32. Lidz CW. The therapeutic misconception and our models of competency and informed consent. Behav Sci Law 2006;24:535-46.
33. Hedstrom P, Swedberg R. Rational choice, empirical research, and the sociological tradition. Eur Sociol Rev 1996;12:127-46.
34. Corrigan O. Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent. Sociol Health Illness 2003;25:768-92.
35. Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001;10:895-8.
36. Donchin A. Understanding autonomy relationally: Toward a reconfiguration of bioethical principles. J Med Phil 2001;26:365- 86.
37. Hedgecoe AM. Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics 2004;18:120-43.
38. Howson A. Cervical screening, compliance and moral obligation. Sociol Health Illness 1999;21:401-25.
39. Green EE, Thompson D, Griffiths F. Narratives of risk: women at midlife, medical "experts" and health technologies. Health Risk Soc 2002;4:273-86.
40. Skolbekken JA, Ursin LA, Solberg B, et al. Not worth the paper it's written on? Informed consent and biobank research in a Norwegian context. Crit Public Health 2005;15:335-47.
41. Lynoe N, Hoeyer K. Quantitative aspects of informed consent: considering the dose response curve when estimating quantity of information. J Med Ethics 2005;31:736-8.
42. Hansson MG. Building on relationships of trust in biobank research. J Med Ethics 2005;31:415-18.
43. Vallgarda S. Governing people's lives - Strategies for improving the health of the nations in England, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Eur J Public Health 2001;11:386-92.
44. Listhaug O. Oil wealth dissatisfaction and political trust in Norway: A resource curse? West Eur Polit 2005;28:834-51.
45. Pfeffer N. Screening for breast cancer: candidacy and compliance. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:151-60.
46. Forss A, Tishelman C, Widmark C, et al. "I got a letter..." a qualitative study of women's reasoning about attendance in a cervical cancer screening programme in urban Sweden.Psychooncology 2001;10:76-87.
47. Webster P, Austoker J. Does the English Breast Screening Programme's information leaflet improve women's knowledge about mammography screening? A before and after questionnaire survey. J Public Health 2007;29:173-7.
48. Saidi G, Sutton S, Bickler G. A predictive study of reasons for attendance and non-attendance at a breast screening programme. Psychol Health 1998;13:23-33.
49. Sin JP, St Leger AS. Interventions to increase breast screening uptake: do they make any difference? J Med Screen 1999;6:170-81.
50. Hewison J, Haines A. Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research. BMJ 2006;333:300-2.
51. Junghans C, Feder G, Hemingway H, et al. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies. BMJ 2005;331:940.
52. Chamot E, Perneger TV. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:799-803.
53. Jepson RG, Forbes CA, Sowden AJ, et al. Increasing informed uptake and nonuptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review. Health Expect 2001;4:116-26.
54. O'Neill O. Accountability, trust and informed consent in medical practice and research. Clin Med 2004;4:269-76.
55. Raffle AE. Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expect 2001;4:92-8.
56. Bayer R, Fairchild AL. The genesis of public health ethics. Bioethics 2004;18:473-92.