Fictitious cases as a methodology to discuss sensitive health topics in focus groups

Purpose: It can be challenging to research aspects of people’s health behaviour, attitudes, and emotions due to the sensitive nature of these topics. We aimed to develop a novel methodology for discussing sensitive health topics, and explore the effectiveness in focus groups using prostate cancer and screening as an example. Method: We developed a fictitious case and employed it as a projective technique in focus groups on prostate cancer and screening. The participants were men and their partners who lived in Denmark. Results: The technique encouraged emotional and cognitive openness in focus group discussions about the risk of prostate cancer, the benefits and harms of screening, and decision-making about screening. It appeared that using the fictitious case allowed the participants to personally distance themselves from the topic, project emotions onto the case, and thereby openly talk about their emotions. Conclusion: This article presents a methodological contribution to communication about sensitive topics in focus groups, using prostate cancer screening as an example. Further refinement of the methodology is needed to enable participants to transfer improvements in knowledge to their own decision about screening

The long-term psychosocial consequences of screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer

Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The AuthorsObjective: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a risk factor for invasive breast cancer (IBC). The prognosis of DCIS is considerably better than for IBC, yet women do not distinguish between the threat. We aimed to compare the psychosocial consequences of screen-detected DCIS and IBC, and to examine this comparison over time. Methods: We surveyed a Danish mammography-screening cohort from 2004 to 2018. We assessed outcomes at six-time points: baseline, 1, 6, 18, 36 months, and 14 years after the screening. We measured psychosocial consequences with the Consequences Of Screening – Breast Cancer (COS-BC): a condition-specific questionnaire that is psychometrically validated and encompasses 14 psychosocial dimensions. We used weighted linear models with generalized estimating equations to compare responses between groups. We used a 1% level of significance. Results: 170 out of 1309 women were diagnosed with breast cancer (13.0%). 23 were diagnosed with DCIS (13.5%) and 147 with IBC (86.5%). From baseline to six months after diagnosis, there were no significant differences between women with DCIS and IBC. However, mean scores indicated that IBC generally was more affected than DCIS. After six months, we observed that women with DCIS and IBC might be affected differently in the long term; mean scores and mean differences showed that IBC were more affected on some scales, while DCIS were on others. Conclusion: Overall, the DCIS and IBC experienced similar levels of psychosocial consequences. Women might benefit from renaming DCIS to exclude cancer nomenclature.publishersversionpublishe

Trends in use of the new MeSH term “Overdiagnosis” - A scoping review

The MeSH term for “Overdiagnosis” was officially introduced on the 7th Sep 2021. Our primary aim is to describe trends in what is published under the MeSH term “Overdiagnosis". Our primary aim is to describe trends in what is published under the MeSH term “overdiagnosis”, since it was introduced as a formal MeSH in 2021, i.e. number of articles per month; which disease areas; which topics; whether it is truly about overdiagnosis (versus concepts like misdiagnosis or false positives); in which journals; the article type; country of publication; language; and the articles’ reach (number of citations, Altmetric score etc.). Our secondary aim is to compare the results of a search using the MeSH term “overdiagnosis” with the results of a simple text search for the word “overdiagnosis”. These searches will be restricted to publications after the introduction of the MeSH term “overdiagnosis” to identify any relevant publications missed under the MeSH term. Lastly, we aim to build a publicly accessible database with the MeSH search results (restricted to those truly about overdiagnosis) and the coding scheme for transparency and for others to use. We plan to update the database annually. Domain being studied: The MeSH term “Overdiagnosis” and the text word “overdiagnosis”, with variations

Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography: a cohort study with follow-up of 12–14 years in Denmark

Objective To compare the long-term psychosocial consequences of mammography screening among women with breast cancer, normal results and false-positive results.Design A matched cohort study with follow-up of 12–14 years.Setting Denmark from 2004 to 2019.Participants 1170 women who participated in the Danish mammography screening programme in 2004–2005.Intervention Mammography screening for women aged 50–69 years.Outcome measures We assessed the psychosocial consequences with the Consequences Of Screening–Breast Cancer, a condition-specific questionnaire that is psychometrically validated and encompasses 14 psychosocial dimensions.Results Across all 14 psychosocial outcomes, women with false-positive results averagely reported higher psychosocial consequences compared with women with normal findings. Mean differences were statistically insignificant except for the existential values scale: 0.61 (95% CI (0.15 to 1.06), p=0.009). Additionally, women with false-positive results and women diagnosed with breast cancer were affected in a dose–response manner, where women diagnosed with breast cancer were more affected than women with false-positive results.Conclusion Our study suggests that a false-positive mammogram is associated with increased psychosocial consequences 12–14 years after the screening. This study adds to the harms of mammography screening. The findings should be used to inform decision-making among the invited women and political and governmental decisions about mammography screening programmes

Questioning ‘Informed Choice’ in Medical Screening: The Role of Neoliberal Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Context

Participation in medical screening programs is presented as a voluntary decision that should be based on an informed choice. An informed choice is often emphasized to rely on three assumptions: (1) the decision-maker has available information about the benefits and harms, (2) the decision-maker can understand and interpret this information, and (3) the decision-maker can relate this information to personal values and preferences. In this article, we empirically challenge the concept of informed choice in the context of medical screening. We use document analysis to analyze and build upon findings and interpretations from previously published articles on participation in screening. We find that citizens do not receive neutral or balanced information about benefits and harms, yet are exposed to manipulative framing effects. The citizens have high expectations about the benefits of screening, and therefore experience cognitive strains when informed about the harm. We demonstrate that decisions about screening participation are informed by neoliberal arguments of personal responsibility and cultural healthism, and thus cannot be regarded as decisions based on individual values and preferences independently of context. We argue that the concept of informed choice serves as a power technology for people to govern themselves and can be considered an implicit verification of biopower

Social Media Promotion of Health Tests With Potential for Overdiagnosis or Overuse: Protocol for a Content Analysis

Background: In recent years, social media have emerged as important spaces for commercial marketing of health tests, which can be used for the screening and diagnosis of otherwise generally healthy people. However, little is known about how health tests are promoted on social media, whether the information provided is accurate and balanced, and if there is transparency around conflicts of interest. Objective: This study aims to understand and quantify how social media is being used to discuss or promote health tests with the potential for overdiagnosis or overuse to generally healthy people. Methods: Content analysis of social media posts on the anti-Mullerian hormone test, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging scan, multicancer early detection, testosterone test, and gut microbe test from influential international social media accounts on Instagram and TikTok. The 5 tests have been identified as having the following criteria: (1) there are evidence-based concerns about overdiagnosis or overuse, (2) there is evidence or concerns that the results of tests do not lead to improved health outcomes for generally healthy people and may cause harm or waste, and (3) the tests are being promoted on social media to generally healthy people. English language text-only posts, images, infographics, articles, recorded videos including reels, and audio-only posts are included. Posts from accounts with \u3c1000 followers as well as stories, live videos, and non-English posts are excluded. Using keywords related to the test, the top posts were searched and screened until there were 100 eligible posts from each platform for each test (total of 1000 posts). Data from the caption, video, and on-screen text are being summarized and extracted into a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation) spreadsheet and included in the analysis. The analysis will take a combined inductive approach when generating key themes and a deductive approach using a prespecified framework. Quantitative data will be analyzed in Stata SE (version 18.0; Stata Corp). Results: Data on Instagram and TikTok have been searched and screened. Analysis has now commenced. The findings will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed international medical journals and will also be presented at national and international conferences in late 2024 and 2025. Conclusions: This study will contribute to the limited evidence base on the nature of the relationship between social media and the problems of overdiagnosis and overuse of health care services. This understanding is essential to develop strategies to mitigate potential harm and plan solutions, with the aim of helping to protect members of the public from being marketed low-value tests, becoming patients unnecessarily, and taking resources away from genuine needs within the health system