Stakeholders’ positions in the breast screening debate, and media coverage of the debate: a qualitative study

Abstract

Against the backdrop of new research evidence suggesting breast screening causes avoidable harms and that women are not being given enough information to make informed decisions, we sought to explore the positions on breast screening adopted by a range of stakeholders, and coverage of this debate in the media. We sampled material from national newspapers, charity bodies' websites, and official bodies' websites over a two-year period, and analysed this using thematic content analysis.Charities' and official bodies' positions were similar in that they were supportive of the NHS Breast Screening Programme, and tended to defend it against its critics.They acknowledged, and partially explained, the imperfect nature of breast screening but often omitted important information such as simple frequency statistics. There was a tendency for newspapers to cover the screening debate in an oblique waypresenting case studies of 'real' women and celebrities. These were mostly positive accounts of women who believed they had benefited from screening and supported the programme. Engagement with the debate in terms of discussion of the criticisms of the programme was lacking. The debate about breast cancer screening, and the increasing focus on its potential harms, received less coverage in the popular media than might have been expected. Interested stakeholder groups do make publicly available information about their positions on the relative value of screening, but these tend to focus on emphasising the potential benefits and less on the possible harms.

The sociology of cancer: a decade of research

“…Similarly, Chen et al . () describe an emphasis on individual responsibilities for addressing cancer risk in media coverage of screening for breast cancer, noting that in the wake of debates surrounding the efficacy of breast cancer screening, its potential harms were less visible in the media than positive accounts from women or celebrities believing they had benefited from screening programmes.…”

“…Musso and Wakefield's (2009) work also explores the portrayal of cancer risk in Canadian newspapers, and found that coverage most frequently emphasised the management of cancer risk through individual lifestyle change. Similarly, Chen et al (2014) describe an emphasis on individual responsibilities for addressing cancer risk in media coverage of screening for breast cancer, noting that in the wake of debates surrounding the efficacy of breast cancer screening, its potential harms were less visible in the media than positive accounts from women or celebrities believing they had benefited from screening programmes.…”

Navigating the uncertainties of screening: the contribution of social theory

“…Overdiagnosis is driven by a range of factors including: increasingly sensitive tests that identify indolent, nonprogressive, or regressive abnormalities; expanded disease definitions and lowered thresholds; creation of pseudo diseases; public enthusiasm for screening or testing and the desire for reassurance (Chen, Eborall et al 2014); clinicians' fear of missing a diagnosis or of litigation; and financial incentives (Moynihan, Henry et al 2014).…”

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment as a quality problem: insights from healthcare improvement research

“…Many likely contributing factors have been identified, including: increasingly sensitive tests that identify indolent, non-progressive or regressive abnormalities; expanded disease definitions and lowered thresholds for intervention; creation of ‘pseudo diseases’; public enthusiasm for screening or testing and the desire for reassurance15; clinicians’ fears of missing a diagnosis or of being held to account for decisions not to act16; and financial incentives 17. In an effort to develop a comprehensive overview, recent work from Australia has sought to map these possible drivers and link them to their potential solutions 18.…”