Assessing the efficacy of cancer screening

Jacklyn, G; Bell, K; Hayen, A

Assessing the efficacy of cancer screening

Jacklyn, G Bell, K Hayen, A

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Public Health Research and Practice, 2017, 27 (3)
Issue Date:: 2017-07-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published VersionAdobe PDF (264.25 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Jacklyn, G	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Bell, K	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hayen, A https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4046-8030	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-07-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Public Health Research and Practice, 2017, 27 (3)	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/115003
dc.description.abstract	© 2017 Jacklyn et al. Background: Population-based cancer screening has been established for several types of cancer in Australia and internationally. Screening may perform differently in practice from randomised controlled trials, which makes evaluating programs complex. Materials and methods: We discuss how to assess the evidence of benefits and harms of cancer screening, including the main biases that can mislead clinicians and policy makers (such as volunteer, lead-time, length-time and overdiagnosis bias). We also discuss ways in which communication of risks can inform or mislead the community. Results: The evaluation of cancer screening programs should involve balancing the benefits and harms. When considering the overall worth of an intervention and allocation of scarce health resources, decisions should focus on the net benefits and be informed by systematic reviews. Communication of screening outcomes can be misleading. Many messages highlight the benefits while downplaying the harms, and often use relative risks and 5-year survival to persuade people to screen rather than support informed choice. Lessons learned: An evidence based approach is essential when evaluating and communicating the benefits and harms of cancer screening, to minimise misleading biases and the reliance on intuition.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Public Health Research and Practice	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.17061/phrp2731727	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Mass Screening	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Acceptance of Health Care	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Practice Guidelines as Topic	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Early Detection of Cancer	en_US
dc.title	Assessing the efficacy of cancer screening	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	3	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	27	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Public Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	3	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	27	en_US

Abstract:

© 2017 Jacklyn et al. Background: Population-based cancer screening has been established for several types of cancer in Australia and internationally. Screening may perform differently in practice from randomised controlled trials, which makes evaluating programs complex. Materials and methods: We discuss how to assess the evidence of benefits and harms of cancer screening, including the main biases that can mislead clinicians and policy makers (such as volunteer, lead-time, length-time and overdiagnosis bias). We also discuss ways in which communication of risks can inform or mislead the community. Results: The evaluation of cancer screening programs should involve balancing the benefits and harms. When considering the overall worth of an intervention and allocation of scarce health resources, decisions should focus on the net benefits and be informed by systematic reviews. Communication of screening outcomes can be misleading. Many messages highlight the benefits while downplaying the harms, and often use relative risks and 5-year survival to persuade people to screen rather than support informed choice. Lessons learned: An evidence based approach is essential when evaluating and communicating the benefits and harms of cancer screening, to minimise misleading biases and the reliance on intuition.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/115003