Information provision in cervical screening in Australia

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 201, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 295-297

  Williams, Jane H ^a   Carter, Stacy M ^a   Rychetnik, Lucie ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CANCER SCREENING; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; NOTE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT HARM; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOLOGY; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SOCIAL STATUS; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; WART VIRUS; AGE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH LITERACY; HEALTH PROMOTION; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT EDUCATION; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

AGE FACTORS; AUSTRALIA; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH LITERACY; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84907365876     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: 13265377     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/mja13.10999     Document Type: Note

References (25)

1. Beauchamp TL, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
2. National Health and Medical Research Council. General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients. Canberra: NHMRC, 2004. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e57 (accessed Jul 2014).
3. Skene L, Smallwood R. Informed consent: lessons from Australia. BMJ 2002; 324: 39-41.
4. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. Vol. 10: cervix cancer screening. Lyon: IARC Press, 2005.
5. International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx (accessed Jul 2014).
6. Australian Government Department of Health National Cervical Screening Program. National Cervical Screening Program Renewal. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/ncsprenewal (accessed Aug 2014).
7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cervical screening in Australia 2010-2011. Canberra: AIHW, 2013. (AIHW Cat. No. CAN 72; Cancer Series 76.) http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129543402 (accessed Jul 2014).
8. Raffle AE, Alden B, Quinn M, et al. Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented. BMJ 2003; 326: 901.
9. Barratt A, Mannes P, Irwig L, et al. Cancer screening. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002; 56: 899-902.
10. Kyrgiou M, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Paraskevaidis E. Increased risk of preterm birth after treatment for CIN. BMJ 2012; 345: e5847.
11. Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ 2008; 337: a1284.
12. McCaff ery KJ, Irwig L, Turner R, et al. Psychosocial outcomes of three triage methods for the management of borderline abnormal cervical smears: an open randomised trial. BMJ 2010; 340: b4491.
13. Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, et al. Framing of health information messages. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (12): CD006777.
14. Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J. Eff ectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case-control study of prospectively recorded data. BMJ 2009; 339: b2968.
15. Shaw D, Elger B. Evidence-based persuasion: an ethical imperative. JAMA 2013; 309: 1689-1690.
16. Australian Government Department of Health National Cervical Screening Program. Information for health professionals. Canberra: DoH, 2013. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/professionals (accessed Nov 2013).
17. Powell N. Cervical screening. Lancet 2000; 355: 411.
18. Raffl e A.E. Information about screening-is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expect 2001; 4: 92-98.
19. Moyer V.A. What we don't know can hurt our patients: physician innumeracy and overuse of screening tests. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 392-393.
20. Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, et al. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 340-349.
21. Stefanek M.E. Uninformed compliance or informed choice? A needed shift in our approach to cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 1821-1826.
22. Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care, Dickinson J, Tsakonas E, et al. Recommendations on screening for cervical cancer. CMAJ 2013; 185: 35-45.
23. Informed Choice about Cancer Screening. NHS cervical screening: helping you decide. London: National Health Service, 2013. http://www.informedchoiceaboutcancerscreening.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/FINALcervical-screening-helping-you-decide.pdf (accessed Jul 2014).
24. Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Trevena L, et al. Communicating about screening. BMJ 2008; 337: a1591.
25. Jørgensen K, Brodersen J, Hartling OJ, et al. Informed choice requires information about both benefi ts and harms. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 268-269.