An aid to the development of Botswana's resources

There are no author-identified significant results in this report

‘Should a mammographic screening programme carry the warning: Screening can damage your health!’?

The balanced presentation afforded by convening a Citizens' Jury when considering a major question such as the introduction of a breast screening programme is advocated. This method would enable account to be taken of all the costs, both human and financial, to all those affected, both participating and organizing, as well as the benefits. Provision of such a democratic opportunity enables consideration to be given to a broad range of factors, by selection of an appropriate range of witnesses, with the advantage of involving the lay public in this decision-making process. Attendance by health correspondents, medical journalists and other media representatives enables publicization of a democracy in action whilst helping to inform the wider debate. Such an exercise could inform whether the NHS BSP should continue in its current form. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

A translational framework for public health research

<p><b>Background</b></p> <p>The paradigm of translational medicine that underpins frameworks such as the Cooksey report on the funding of health research does not adequately reflect the complex reality of the public health environment. We therefore outline a translational framework for public health research.</p> <p><b>Discussion</b></p> <p>Our framework redefines the objective of translation from that of institutionalising effective interventions to that of improving population health by influencing both individual and collective determinants of health. It incorporates epidemiological perspectives with those of the social sciences, recognising that many types of research may contribute to the shaping of policy, practice and future research. It also identifies a pivotal role for evidence synthesis and the importance of non-linear and intersectoral interfaces with the public realm.</p> <p><b>Summary</b></p> <p>We propose a research agenda to advance the field and argue that resources for 'applied' or 'translational' public health research should be deployed across the framework, not reserved for 'dissemination' or 'implementation'.</p&gt

Developing the specifications of an Open Angle Glaucoma screening intervention in the United Kingdom : a Delphi approach

PMID: 23216983 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3563574 Free PMC Article Acknowledgements We thank all the glaucoma specialists who took part in the Delphi process. We thank the Glaucoma screening Platform Study advisory panel including R Bativala, D Crabb, D Garway-Heath, M Griffiths, R Hitchings; S McPherson, A Tuulonen, A Viswanathan, H Waterman, R Wormald, D Wright for their guidance and contribution to the Delphi process and Luke Vale and Rodolfo Hernandez for their advice on development of the Delphi questionnaires. This paper was developed from the first phase of a project funded by the MRC (project reference G0701759) Developing the intervention & outcome components of a proposed randomized controlled trial of screening for open angle glaucoma. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain:public preferences for an expert recommendation

BACKGROUND: Informed decision-making approaches to cancer screening emphasise the importance of decisions being determined by individuals' own values and preferences. However, advice from a trusted source may also contribute to autonomous decision-making. This study examined preferences regarding a recommendation from the NHS and information provision in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: In face-to-face interviews, a population-based sample of adults across Britain (n=1964; age 50–80 years) indicated their preference between: (1) a strong recommendation to participate in CRC screening, (2) a recommendation alongside advice to make an individual decision, and (3) no recommendation but advice to make an individual decision. Other measures included trust in the NHS and preferences for information on benefits and risks. RESULTS: Most respondents (84%) preferred a recommendation (47% strong recommendation, 37% recommendation plus individual decision-making advice), but the majority also wanted full information on risks (77%) and benefits (78%). Men were more in favour of a recommendation than women (86% vs 81%). Trust in the NHS was high overall, but the minority who expressed low trust were less likely to want a recommendation. CONCLUSION: Most British adults want full information on risks and benefits of screening but they also want a recommendation from an authoritative source. An ‘expert' view may be an important part of autonomous health decision-making

Social Patterning of Screening Uptake and the Impact of Facilitating Informed Choices: Psychological and Ethical Analyses

Screening for unsuspected disease has both possible benefits and harms for those who participate. Historically the benefits of participation have been emphasized to maximize uptake reflecting a public health approach to policy; currently policy is moving towards an informed choice approach involving giving information about both benefits and harms of participation. However, no research has been conducted to evaluate the impact on health of an informed choice policy. Using psychological models, the first aim of this study was to describe an explanatory framework for variation in screening uptake and to apply this framework to assess the impact of informed choices in screening. The second aim was to evaluate ethically that impact. Data from a general population survey (n = 300) of beliefs and attitudes towards participation in diabetes screening indicated that greater orientation to the present is associated with greater social deprivation and lower expectation of participation in screening. The results inform an explanatory framework of social patterning of screening in which greater orientation to the present focuses attention on the disadvantages of screening, which tend to be immediate, thereby reducing participation. This framework suggests that an informed choice policy, by increasing the salience of possible harms of screening, might reduce uptake of screening more in those who are more deprived and orientated to the present. This possibility gives rise to an apparent dilemma where an ethical decision must be made between greater choice and avoiding health inequality. Philosophical perspectives on choice and inequality are used to point to some of the complexities in assessing whether there really is such a dilemma and if so how it should be resolved. The paper concludes with a discussion of the ethics of paternalism