Dataset Information

Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate whether invitations for publicly funded cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable an informed choice about participation.

Design

Cross-sectional study using a checklist of 23 information items on benefits and harms from cervical screening and the risks related to cervical cancer.

Material

Invitations to publicly funded cervical screening in 10 Scandinavian and English-speaking countries.

Setting

Ten Scandinavian and English speaking countries.

Participants

Sixteen screening units representing 10 Scandinavian and English speaking countries.

Main outcome measures

Number of information items presented in invitations for cervical screening.

Results

We contacted 21 coordinating units from 11 countries and 20 (95%) responded. Of these, four units did not issue invitations, but the remaining 16 coordinating units in 10 different countries supplied a sample. The invitations for cervical screening were generally information poor and contained a median of only four out of 23 information items possible (17%), ranging from 0 to 12 (0-52%). The most important harms of cancer screening, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, were typically downplayed or unmentioned. The same applied to other important harms, such as false-positive results and the psychological consequences from an abnormal test result. The majority of invitations took a paternalistic approach. While only two invitations (17%) included a pre-assigned appointment date, eight (70%) of the invitations contained strong appeals for participation.

Conclusions

Invitations to cervical cancer screening were information poor and biased in favour of participation. This means that informed choice is not possible, which is in conflict with modern requirements for personal involvement in medical decisions.

SUBMITTER: Kolthoff SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4940995 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS:Randomized clinical trials are widely recognized as essential to address worldwide clinical and public health research questions. However, their size and duration can overwhelm available public and private resources. To remain competitive in international research settings, advocates and practitioners of clinical trials must implement practices that reduce their cost. We identify approaches and practices for large, publicly funded, international trials that reduce cost without compromising data integrity and recommend an approach to cost reporting that permits comparison of clinical trials. METHODS:We describe the organizational and financial characteristics of The International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials, an infectious disease research network that conducts multiple, large, long-term, international trials, and examine challenges associated with simple and streamlined governance and an infrastructure and financial management model that is based on performance, transparency, and accountability. RESULTS:It is possible to reduce costs of participants' follow-up and not compromise clinical trial quality or integrity. The International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials network has successfully completed three large HIV trials using cost-efficient practices that have not adversely affected investigator enthusiasm, accrual rates, loss-to-follow-up, adherence to the protocol, and completion of data collection. This experience is relevant to the conduct of large, publicly funded trials in other disease areas, particularly trials dependent on international collaborations. CONCLUSION:New approaches, or creative adaption of traditional clinical trial infrastructure and financial management tools, can render large, international clinical trials more cost-efficient by emphasizing structural simplicity, minimal up-front costs, payments for performance, and uniform algorithms and fees-for-service, irrespective of location. However, challenges remain. They include institutional resistance to financial change, growing trial complexity, and the difficulty of sustaining network infrastructure absent stable research work. There is also a need for more central monitoring, improved and harmonized regulations, and a widely applied metric for measuring and comparing cost efficiency in clinical trials. ClinicalTrials.gov is recommended as a location where standardized trial cost information could be made publicly accessible.