The sociology of medical screening: Past, present and future

Sociology of Health and Illness

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 161-176

  Armstrong, Natalie ^a   Eborall, Helen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Screening; Sociology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RISK FACTOR; SOCIOLOGY;

EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; GENETIC TESTING; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; RISK FACTORS; SOCIOLOGY;

EID: 84857479596     PISSN: 01419889     EISSN: 14679566     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01441.x     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening (2009) Minutes of extraordinary meeting to re-examine current policy on cervical screening for women aged 20-24years taking account of any new evidence and to make recommendations to the National Cancer Director and Ministers. Available at:.
2. Annandale, E. (1998) The Sociology of Health and Medicine: a Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
3. Armstrong, D. (1983) Political Anatomy of the Body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Armstrong, D. (1993) Public health spaces and the fabrication of identity, Sociology, 27, 3, 393-410.
5. Armstrong, D. (1995) The rise of surveillance medicine, Sociology of Health and Illness, 17, 393-404.
6. Armstrong, N. (2005) Resistance through risk: women and cervical cancer screening, Health, Risk and Society, 7, 161-76.
7. Armstrong, N. (2007) Discourse and the individual in cervical cancer screening, Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 11, 69-85.
8. Armstrong, N. and Murphy, E. (2008) Weaving meaning? An exploration of the interplay between lay and professional understandings of cervical cancer risk, Social Science and Medicine, 67, 1074-82.
9. Armstrong, N. Dixon-Woods, M. and Murphy, E. (2010) Age criteria for cervical screening in England: qualitative study of women's views, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester Working Papers Series No.10:01 Available at:.
10. Barker, K.K. and Galardi, T.R. (2011) Dead by 50: lay expertise and breast cancer screening, Social Science and Medicine, 72, 1351-58.
11. Baum, M., McCartney, M., Thornton, H. and Bewley, S. (2009) Breast cancer screening peril: negative consequences of the breast screening programme, The Times, 19 Feb.
12. Bird, C.E., Conrad, P. and Fremont, A.M. (2000) Medical sociology at the millennium. In Bird, C.E., Conrad, P. and Fremont, A.M. (eds) Handbook of Medical Sociology: 5th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
13. Bish, A., Sutton, S. and Golombok, S. (2000) Predicting uptake of a routine cervical smear test: a comparison of the health belief model and the theory of planned behaviour, Psychology and Health, 15, 35-50.
14. Braun, V. and Gavey, N. (1999) 'With the best of reasons': cervical cancer prevention policy and the suppression of risk factor information, Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1463-74.
15. Brett, J., Bankhead, C., Henderson, B., Watson, E. and Austoker, J. (2005) The psychological impact of mammographic screening: a systematic review, Psycho-oncology, 14, 917-38.
16. Bush, J. (2000) 'It's just part of being a woman': cervical screening, the body and femininity, Social Science and Medicine, 50, 3, 429-44.
17. Burrows, R., Nettleton, S. and Bunton, R. (1995) Sociology and health promotion: health, risk and consumption under late modernism. In Bunton, R., Nettleton, S. and Burrows, R. (eds) The Sociology of Health Promotion: Critical Analyses of Consumption, Lifestyle and Risk. London: Routledge.
18. Castel, R. (1991) From dangerousness to risk. In Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds) The Foucault Effect. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
19. Chapple, A., Ziebland, S., Hewitson P. and McPherson, A. (2008) What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study, Social Science and Medicine, 66, 2425-35.
20. Cole, A. (2010) UK patients are given advice on private screening, BMJ, 341, c5394.
21. Cox, S.M. and McKellin, W. (1999) 'There's this thing in our family': predictive testing and the construction of risk for Huntington Disease, Sociology of Health and Illness, 21, 622-46.
22. Davison, C., Macintyre, S. and Davey Smith, G. (1994) The potential social impact of predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to common chronic diseases: a review and proposed research agenda, Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 340-71.
23. Department of Health (2009) Free NHS Health Check: Helping you Prevent heart Disease, Stroke, Diabetes and Kidney Disease. London: Department of Health.
24. Department of Health (2010) Comment on calls to lower cervical cancer screening age. Available at: (accessed 31.8.2011).
25. Dillard, A.J., Ferrer, R.A., Ubel, P.A. and Fagerlin, A. (2011) Risk perception measures' associations with behavior intentions, affect, and cognition following colon cancer screening messages, Health Psychology, 1 August 2011, no pagination specified, doi.
26. Gøtzsche, P.C. and Nielsen, M. (2009) Screening for breast cancer with mammography, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, CD001877.
27. Green, E., Thompson, E. and Griffiths, F. (2002) Narratives of risk: women at midlife, medical 'experts' and health technologies, Health, Risk and Society, 4, 273-86.
28. Griffiths, F., Green, E. and Bendelow, G. (2006) Health professionals, their medical interventions and uncertainty: A study focusing on women at midlife, Social Science and Medicine, 62, 1078-90.
29. Griffiths, F., Bendelow, G., Green, E. and Palmer, J. (2010) Screening for breast cancer: Medicalization, visualization and the embodied experience, Health, 14, 653-68.
30. Grob, R. (2008) Is my sick child healthy? Is my healthy child sick?: changes in parental experiences of cystic fibrosis in the age of expanded newborn screening, Social Science and Medicine, 67, 1056-64.
31. Hallowell, N. (1999) Doing the right thing: genetic risk and responsibility, Sociology of Health and Illness, 21, 5, 597-621.
32. Hallowell, N., Arden-Jones, A., Eeles, R., Foster, C., Lucassen, A., Moynihan, C. and Watson, M. (2006) Guilt, blame and responsibility: men's understanding of their role in the transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations within their family, Sociology of Health and Illness, 28, 969-88.
33. Heyman, B., Lewando Hundt, G., Sandall, J., Spencer, K., Williams, C., Grellier, R. and Pitson, L. (2006) On being at higher risk: prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies, Social Science and Medicine, 62, 2360-72.
34. Howson, A. (1998) Embodied obligation: the female body and health surveillance. In Nettleton, S and Watson, J. (eds) The Body in Everyday Life. London: Routledge.
35. Howson, A. (1999) Cervical screening, compliance and moral obligation, Sociology of Health and Illness, 21, 4, 401-25.
36. Howson, A. (2001) Locating uncertainties in cervical screening, Health, Risk and Society, 3, 167-79.
37. Jepson, R., Clegg, A., Forbes, C., Lewis, R., Sowden, A. and Kleijnen, J. (2000) The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review, Health Technology Assessment, 4, 14.
38. Jepson, R.G., Hewison, J., Thompson, A. and Weller, D. (2007) Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: A qualitative study in the UK, Social Science and Medicine, 65, 890-99.
39. Jutel, A. and Nettleton, S. (2011) Towards a sociology of diagnosis: reflections and opportunities, Social Science and Medicine, 73, 6, 793-800.
40. Kavanagh, A.M. and Broom, D.H. (1998) Embodied risk: my body, myself? Social Science and Medicine, 46, 437-44.
41. Lehoux, P., Denis, J-L., Rock, M., Hivon, M. and Tailliez, M. (2010) How medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations: scientific, clinical and social arguments, Sociology of Health and Illness, 32, 123-39.
42. Lupton, D. (1995) The Imperative of Health. London: Sage.
43. Markens, S., Browner, C.H. and Preloran, H.M. (2010) Interrogating the dynamics between power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision making, Sociology of Health and Illness, 32, 37-56.
44. Marteau, T.M., Mann, E., Prevost, A.T., Vasconcelos, J.C., Kellar, I., Sanderson, S., Parker, M., Griffin, S., Sutton, S. and Kinmonth, A-L. (2010) Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial, BMJ, 340, 1176.
45. Mayor, S. (2010) Critics attack new NHS breast screening leaflet for failing to address harms, BMJ, 341: c7267.
46. McCaffery, K., Borril, J., Williamson, S., Taylor, T., Sutton, S., Atkin, W. and Wardle J. (2001) Declining the offer of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for bowel cancer: a qualitative investigation of the decision-making process, Social Science and Medicine, 53, 679-91.
47. McKie, L. (1995) The art of surveillance or reasonable prevention? The case of cervical screening, Sociology of Health and Illness, 17, 4, 441-57.
48. McPherson, K. (2010) Should we screen for breast cancer? BMJ, 340: c310.
49. National Screening Committee. (2011) UK screening portal. Available from:.
50. Neilson, A. and Jones, R. (1998) Women's lay knowledge of cervical cancer/cervical screening: accounting for non-attendance at cervical screening clinics, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28, 571-75.
51. Nettleton, S. (1995) The Sociology of Health and Illness. Cambridge: Polity Press.
52. Nettleton, S. and Bunton, R. (1995) Sociological critiques of health promotion. In Bunton, R., Burrows, R. and Nettleton, S. (eds) The Sociology of Health Promotion. London: Routledge.
53. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes (2011a) (accessed 31.8.2011).
54. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes (2011b) (accessed 31.8.2011).
55. Norman, P. and Conner, M. (1992) Health checks in General Practice, Family Practice, 9, 481-87.
56. Orbell, S., O'Sullivan, I., Parker, R., Steele, B., Campbell, C. and Weller, D. (2008) Illness representations and coping following an abnormal colorectal cancer screening result, Social Science and Medicine, 67, 1465-74.
57. Petersen, A. and Lupton, D. (1996) The New Public Health. London: Sage.
58. Pettigrew, M., Sowden, A., Lister-Sharp, D. and Wright, K. (2000) False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications, Health Technology Assessment, 4, 5, 1-33.
59. Pfeffer, N. (2004) Screening for breast cancer: candidacy and compliance, Social Science and Medicine, 58, 151-60.
60. Pilnick, A. (2008) 'It's something for you both to think about': choice and decision making in nuchal translucency screening for Down's syndrome, Sociology of Health and Illness, 30, 4, 511-30.
61. Polzer, J., Mercer, S. L. and Goel, V. (2002) Blood is thicker than water: genetic testing as citizenship through familial obligation and the management of risk, Critical Public Health, 12, 2, 153-68.
62. Raffle, A.E. (2001) Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expectations, 4, 92-8.
63. Raspberry, K. and Skinner, D. (2011) Enacting genetic responsibility: experiences of mothers who carry the fragile X gene, Sociology of Health and Illness, 33, 420-33.
64. Reed, K. (2009) 'It's them faulty genes again': women, men and the gendered nature of genetic responsibility in prenatal blood screening, Sociology of Health and Illness, 31, 343-59.
65. Seale, C. (2008) Mapping the field of medical sociology: a comparative analysis of journals, Sociology of Health and Illness, 30, 677-95.
66. Singleton, V. (1998) Stabilizing instabilities: the role of the laboratory in the United Kingdom cervical screening programme. In Berg, M. and Mol, A. (eds) Differences in Medicine: Unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies. Durham: Duke University Press.
67. Steinberg, D.L. (1996) Languages of risk: genetic encryptions of the female body: Women, a Cultural Review, Volume 7.
68. Todorova, I.L.G., Baban, A., Balabanova, D., Panayotova, Y. and Bradley, J. (2006) Providers' constructions of the role of women in cervical cancer screening in Bulgaria and Romania, Social Science and Medicine, 63, 776-87.
69. Tymstra, T. and Bieleman, B. (1987) The psychosocial impact of mass screening for cardiovascular risk factors, Family Practice, 4, 4, 287-90.
70. UK National Screening Committee. (2000) Second Report of the UK National Screening Committee. Available from:.
71. Wardle, J., Williamson, S., McCaffery, K., Sutton, S., Taylor, T., Edwards, R. and Atkin, W. (2003) Increasing attendance at colorectal cancer screening: testing the efficacy of a mailed, psychoeducational intervention in a community sample of older adults, Health Psychology, 22, 99-105.
72. Watson, M.S., Lloyd-Puryear, M.A., Mann, M.Y., Ronaldo, P. and Howell, R.R. (2006) Newborn Screening: Toward a Uniform Screening Panel and System, Genetics in Medicine, 8, 5 (Supplement), 12S.
73. Wieser, B. (2010) Public accountability of newborn screening: Collective knowing and deciding, Social Science and Medicine, 70, 926-33.
74. Williams, C., Sandall, J., Lewando-Hundt, G., Heyman, B., Spencer, K. and Grellier, R. (2005) Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening, Social Science and Medicine, 61, 1983-92.
75. Wilson, J.M.G. and Jungner, G. (1968) Principles and practice of screening for disease. Public health paper No. 34. Geneva: World Health Organisation. Available from:.
76. Yamey, G. and Wilkes, M. (2002) The PSA storm: Questioning cancer screening can be a risky business in America, British Medical Journal, 324: 431.