The influence of health systems on breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an overview of systematic reviews using health systems and implementation research frameworks.

Objectives Screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer in an average-risk population is widely recommended in national and international guidelines although their implementation varies. Using a conceptual framework that draws on implementation and health systems research, we provide an overview of systematic literature reviews that address health system and service barriers or facilitators to effective cancer screening. Methods Using a systematic approach, we searched Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, PsychInfo and other internet sources. We included systematic reviews of screening interventions (i.e. targeting people at average risk) for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. The analysis included 90 systematic reviews. Results This review identified a multitude of barriers and facilitators affecting the health system, the capabilities of individuals in the system and their intentions. A large proportion of the available evidence focused on uptake. The reviews demonstrated that health system factors influenced participation, as well as quality and effectiveness of the service provided. The barriers with the biggest impact were knowledge/education, mainly of clients but also providers (capability barriers) and beliefs and values (intention barriers) of the eligible population. These findings complement the usual focus on psychological and social barriers to informed participation by individuals that dominate the screening literature. The facilitators with the most supporting evidence were educational interventions (overcoming capability and intention barriers), invitation letters, reminders and appointments. These were mainly directed at eligible individuals and, to a lesser extent, to providers and healthcare professionals. Only a small number of reviews, mainly from Europe, specified organized, rather than opportunistic, screening programmes. In those, low participation was the most frequently cited barrier and invitation letters (including physician endorsement, phone calls and reminders to non-responders and healthcare professionals) were the most prevalent facilitators. Conclusion Despite evidence of barriers and facilitators to screening participation and opportunistic screening, further health systems research covering the entire screening system for organized programmes is required. </jats:sec

Why Moral Expertise Needs Moral Theory

Discussions of the nature or possibility of moral expertise have largely proceeded in atheoretical terms, with little attention paid to whether moral expertise depends on theoretical knowledge of morality. Here I argue that moral expertise is more theory-dependent than is commonly recognized: Moral expertise consists, at least in part, in knowledge of the correct or best moral theory, and second, that knowledge of moral theory is essential to moral experts dispensing expert counsel to non-experts. Moral experts would not be moral experts absent knowledge of moral theory, nor could they play the testimonial role we would expect them to play in moral inquiry and deliberation absent such knowledg

Key indicators of organized cancer screening programs: Results from a Delphi study

Objective To maximize benefits and reduce potential harms of organized cancer screening programs in Europe, monitoring, quality assurance, and evaluation of long-term impact are required. We aimed to identify the most important indicators to be collected and reported. The study was designed to establish a consensus within a European-level working group and suggest a manageable list of key indicators. Methods We conducted a Delphi study among policymakers, researchers, and program coordinators who were experts in breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening. Study participants evaluated the importance of screening indicators on a 5-point Likert scale. Results The top 10 indicators by study participants were interval cancer rate, detection rate, screening attendance, screening coverage, cancer incidence

Beyond individualism:Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from SAGE Publications via the DOI in this recordThe dominant, individualistic understanding of autonomy that features in clinical practice and research is underpinned by the idea that people are, in their ideal form, independent, self-interested and rational gain-maximising decision-makers. In recent decades, this paradigm has been challenged from various disciplinary and intellectual directions. Proponents of ‘relational autonomy’ in particular have argued that people’s identities, needs, interests – and indeed autonomy – are always also shaped by their relations to others. Yet, despite the pronounced and nuanced critique directed at an individualistic understanding of autonomy, this critique has had very little effect on ethical and legal instruments in clinical practice and research so far. In this article, we use four case studies to explore to what extent, if at all, relational autonomy can provide solutions to ethical and practical problems in clinical practice and research. We conclude that certain forms of relational autonomy can have a tangible and positive impact on clinical practice and research. These solutions leave the ultimate decision to the person most affected, but encourage and facilitate the consideration of this person’s care and responsibility for connected others.The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: ESD is supported by a Wellcome Senior Investigator Award ‘Confronting the Liminal Spaces of Health Research Regulation’ (Award No: WT103360MA)