Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Author:

Sturdy SteveORCID,Miller Fiona,Hogarth Stuart,Armstrong Natalie,Chakraborty Pranesh,Cressman Celine,Dobrow Mark,Flitcroft Kathy,Grossman David,Harris Russell,Hoebee Barbara,Holloway Kelly,Kinsinger Linda,Krag Marlene,Löblová Olga,Löwy Ilana,Mackie Anne,Marshall John,O'Hallahan Jane,Rabeneck Linda,Raffle Angela,Reid LynetteORCID,Shortland Graham,Steele Robert,Tarini Beth,Taylor-Phillips SianORCID,Towler Bernie,van der Veen Nynke,Zappa Marco

Abstract

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.

Funder

European Research Council

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Wellcome Trust

Publisher

F1000 Research Ltd

Subject

General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,Medicine (miscellaneous)

Reference34 articles.

1. Principles and practice of screening for disease.;J Wilson,1968

2. The emergence of the concept of screening for disease.;S Reiser;Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc.,1978

3. New concepts in screening.;J Gray;Br J Gen Pract.,2004

4. The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening.;R Harris;JAMA Intern Med.,2014

5. Ethical aspects of cancer screening.;S Carter;Cancer Forum.,2016

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3