Information about screening – is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?

Abstract

For many years, public information about screening has been aimed at achieving high uptake but concerns are now being raised about this approach. There are several problems that have prompted these concerns. By giving information that emphasizes only the positive aspects of screening the autonomy of individuals is ignored, individuals feel angry when they perceive that they are let down by screening, symptoms may be disregarded because of the belief that screening gives full protection, health service sta carry the blame for problems that are in fact inherent in screening, and sound debate about policy and investment in screening is hampered by misunderstanding about the bene®ts and costs of screening.If we adopt instead an approach that makes explicit the limitations and adverse e ects then a di erent set of problems will be encountered. We risk a reduction in uptake of screening and thus population bene®ts may reduce, those most likely to be deterred from accepting screening may be the most socially disadvantaged, there will be a cost in terms of sta time to explain screening more fully to participants, and cost-e ectiveness could be reduced if uptake falls so low as to make services barely viable.In the UK current General Medical Council (GMC) advice 1 to doctors about informed consent for screening makes it clear that full information should be given. The UK National Screening Committee has also signalled the need for a changed approach to information 2 giving so that individuals are o ered a choice based on appreciation of risks and bene®ts. It will take time for this approach to be fully re¯ected across the full range of UK screening programmes. New national information will be needed to assist sta in giving full information, and some aspects of policy, such as screening coverage targets for Health Authorities and General Practitioners, will need to be altered.There are many questions still to be answered about the kind of information needed to achieve informed participation, and about how it should be framed and communicated. These questions can begin to be addressed when there is clarity at national level about the purpose of information about screening.

A qualitative study to explore how professionals in the United Kingdom make decisions to test children for a sickle cell carrier status

“…Critical thought is arguably beneficial to inform considered decision making 34 when 'good practice depends upon the use of judgement in individual cases'. 35 By reflecting on both the possible benefits and harms of testing, the perceived responsibility to encourage testing and to suppress the discouragement of testing may reduce, decreasing biased information-giving to parents-which is not conducive to informed choices or consent, 36 does not take into consideration parents' autonomous wishes to defer testing 12 and is described to be a paradox to the ethos of non-directive genetic counselling. 13 However, as highlighted by our results, if testing is not provided, it might be sought elsewhere from professionals (such as GPs) who have less expertise.…”

Carrier screening for Beta-thalassaemia: a review of international practice

“…1 Population carrier screening programmes aim to identify asymptomatic carriers of recessive conditions, so that they are informed and understand their reproductive risks and options. [2][3][4] If both members of a couple are found to be carriers of an autosomal recessive condition, they have a one in four chance of having an affected child. Carrier screening programmes are conducted throughout the world.…”

Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?

“…[1][2][3][4][5] The paradigm of informed choice is based on both ethical and psychological considerations. By means of informed choice, the ethical principle of autonomy is respected, [5][6][7] and better psychological outcomes are assumed to be achieved.…”