Communicating the balance sheet in breast cancer screening

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 19, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2012, Pages 67-71

  Giordano, Livia ^a   Cogo, Carla ^b   Patnick, Julietta ^c   Paci, Eugenio ^d  

^a MOLINETTE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^b Cancer Registry ^*  (Italy)

^c NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

^d CANCER RESEARCH AND PREVENTION INSTITUTE ISPO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; DECISION MAKING; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING;

EID: 84868136224     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: 14755793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/jms.2012.012084     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Giordano L, Rowinski M, Gaudenzi G, Segnan N. What information do breast cancer screening programmes provide to Italian women? Eur J Public Health 2005;15:66-9
2. Thornton H, Edwards A, Baum M. Women need better information about routine mammography. BMJ 2003;327:101-3
3. Raffle AE. Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expect 2001;4:92-8
4. Croft E, Barratt A, Butow P. Information about tests for breast cancer: what are we telling people? J Family Practice 2002;51:858-60
5. Coulter A. Patient-centered decision making: Empowering women to make informed choices. Womens Health Issues 2001;11:325-30
6. Deber R. Physicians in Health Care Management: 7: The patient- physician partnership: changing roles and the desire for information. Can Med Assoc J 1994;151:171-6
7. Quill TE, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: Finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:763-9
8. Giordano L, Webster P, Segnan N, Austoker J. Guidance on breast screening communication. In: Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al., eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. Luxembourg: European Communities, 2006:379-94
9. Giordano L, Webster P, Anthony C, et al. Guidance on communication in cervical screening. In: Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, et al., eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening, 2th edn. Luxembourg: European Communities, 2008:243-66
10. Austoker J, Giordano L, Hewitson P, Villain P. Communication. In: Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectall cancer screening and diagnosis, 1th edn. Luxembourg: European Communities, 2010:301-39
11. Department of Health, NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. Breast screening: the facts. 2006. Available at: www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/ breastscreen/ publications/ia-02.html
12. Edwards A, Elwyn g, Mulley A. Explaining risks: Turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ 2002;324:827-30
13. Euroscreen Working Group. Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen 2012 (in press)
14. Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M, et al. Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization coverage and participation. J Med Screen 2012 (in press)
15. Timmermans DR, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Henneman L. Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Educ Couns 2008;73:443-7
16. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2007;8:53-96
17. Covey J. A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Med Decis Making 2007;27:638-54
18. Kristiansen IS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB. Number needed to treat: Easily understood and intuitively meaningful? Theoretical considerations and a randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:888-92
19. How to write medical information in plain English. Plain English campaign 2001. Available at: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html
20. D. Charnock. The DISCERN Handbook. Quality criteria for consumer health information on treatment choices. Radcliffe Medical Press. # 1998 University of Oxford and The British Library. Available at: http://www. discern.org.uk/index. php
21. National cancer Institute (NCI). Designing print materials: A communications guide for breast cancer screening. Bethesda (MD): NIH, 2007. NHI Publication No 07-6100 Available at: http://appliedsearch. cancer.gov/icsn/ manual.pdf
22. McPherson K. Screening for breast cancer-balancing the debate BMJ 2010;340:c3106
23. Gøtzsche P, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Brodersen J, Jørgensen KJ. Breast screening the facts-or maybe not. BMJ 2009;338:b86
24. NHS cancer screening programmes. Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme. Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/prostate/ index.html
25. International workshop on randomized lung cancer screening trials. State of the art in Europe after early conclusion of the US National Lung Screening Trial. The European Lung Cancer Trials. The PISA Position Statement. Pisa, Italy, March 4th 2011. Available at: http://www. osservatorionazionalescreening. it/ita/images/stories/pisa-position-statement-english.pdf
26. Austoker J. Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficult-but many misconceptions need to be undone. BMJ 1999;319:722-3
27. Giordano L, Stefanini V, Senore C, et al. The impact of different communication and organizational strategies on mammography screening uptake in women aged 40-45 Eur J Public Health 2011
28. Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson A, Weller D. Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: a qualitative study in the UK. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:890-9
29. Østerlie W, Solbjør M, Skolbekken JA, Hofvind S, Sætnan AR, Forsmo S. Challenges of informed choice in organised screening. J Med Ethics 2008;34:e5
30. Cogo C, Grazzini G, Iossa A. Analysis of health information within Italian Cervical Screening Programmes Osservatorio Nazionale Screening, Terzo Rapporto. Available at: http://win.osservatorionazionalescreening.it/ eng-select.php
31. Alaszewski A, Horlick-Jones T. How can doctors communicate information about risk more effectively? BMJ 2003;327:728-31
32. Covello V, Sandman P. "Risk communication: evolution and revolution," in Wolbarst A. Solutions to an Environment in Peril. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, (2001):164-78. Available at: http://www. psandman.com/articles/covello.htm
33. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. The breast screening programme and misinforming the public. J R Soc Med 2011;104:361-9
34. Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB. The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis 1997;17:43-54
35. Edwards A. Communicating risks. Means that patients too have to learn to live with uncertainty. Editorial. BMJ 2003;327:691-2
36. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. A literature review of trust and reputation management in communicable disease public health, Stockholm: ECDC; 2011 Available at: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/ publications/Publications/Forms/ECDC-DispForm.aspx?ID=763
37. Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:605-13
38. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Olsen AH, et al. Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England. J Med Screen 2010;17:25-30
39. Puliti D, Zappa M, Miccinesi G, Falini P, Crocetti E, Paci E. An estimate of overdiagnosis 15 years after the start of mammographic screening in Florence. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:3166-71