The present review includes seven new publications and unpublished data concerning CRC screening using FOBT. This review confirms previous research demonstrating that FOBT screening reduces the risk of CRC mortality. The results also indicate that there is no difference in all-cause mortality between the screened and nonscreened populations.

Background Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in the Western world. The human and financial costs have prompted considerable research to evaluate screening tests to detect the cancer at an early curable stage. Tests that have been considered for population screening include the faecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) may be achieved by the introduction of population-based screening programmes. Objectives To determine whether screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test (guaiac or immunochemical) reduces colorectal cancer mortality and to consider the benefits and harms of screening.

Objective: To review effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult, and to consider benefits and harms of screening. Design: Systematic review of trials of Hemoccult screening, with meta-analysis of results from the randomised controlled trials. Subjects: Four randomised controlled trials and two non-randomised trials of about 330 000 and 113 000 people respectively aged >40 years in five countries. Main outcome measures: Meta-analysis of effects of screening on mortality from colorectal cancer. Results: Quality of trial design was generally high, and screening resulted in a favourable shift in the stage distribution of colorectal cancers in the screening groups. Meta-analysis of mortality results from the four randomised controlled trials showed that those allocated to screening had a reduction in mortality from colorectal cancer of 16% (relative risk 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.93)). When adjusted for attendance for screening, this reduction was 23% (relative risk 0.77 (0.57 to 0.89)) for people actually screened. If a biennial Hemoccult screening programme were offered to 10 000 people and about two thirds attended for at least one Hemoccult test, 8.5 (3.6 to 13.5) deaths from colorectal cancer would be prevented over a period of 10 years. Conclusion: Although benefits of screening are likely to outweigh harms for populations at high risk of colorectal cancer, more information is needed about the harmful effects of screening, the community's responses to screening, and costs of screening for different healthcare systems before widespread screening can be recommended.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to assess GPs' attitudes, clinical behaviour, information needs and contact with anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) users in an area reported to have a high prevalence of AAS use. It was a cross-sectional study of GPs using a self-administered questionnaire. The sample comprised of 202 GPs practising in the Central Business District and inner city area of Sydney took part. Of 164 eligible GPs, 143 responded (87% response rate). Fifty-three per cent of respondents reported that they had seen at least one patient in the last year who told them they had used AASs for non-medical purposes; 6% indicated that they had seen more than 20 patients who mentioned AAS use. Two per cent of respondents reported prescribing AASs for body-building purposes and 6% indicated a willingness to do so in a hypothetical situation. Forty per cent of respondents reported that they would be willing to provide harm minimization advice to AAS users; 77% of respondents were interested in obtaining more information about AAS use, most frequently requested in the form of a fact sheet or pamphlet. Most GPs in the area surveyed had some contact with AAS users in their practice. Some GPs had favourable attitudes towards prescription of AASs for non-medical purposes. These attitudes require further exploration. The results of this survey invite a reappraisal of many policy initiatives involving GPs aimed at reducing AAS-related harm.

Background: In their landmark report on the “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease” (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of “screening governance organizations” to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Background: In their landmark report on the “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease” (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of “screening governance organizations” to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by the three lead authors. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

is article describes action taken when the NSW Health Department responded to a notification by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) that 13 crew members on an Australian container ship, due to dock at Port Botany, had been unwell with a diarrhoeal illness. The ship had travelled to Asia and the notification was received four days before it was due to berth in Sydney on its return trip. The ship's master was concerned that crew members had become ill after docking in Taiwan, 19 days before their arrival in Sydney.