ArticleBMJ open2015
Values in breast cancer screening: an empirical study with Australian experts.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Ethical Dimensions of Population-Based Lung Cancer Screening in Canada: Key Informant Qualitative Description Study.Public health ethics · 2024Article
- To Consent or Not to Consent to Screening, That Is the Question.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Knowledge exchange sessions on primary health care research findings in public libraries: A qualitative study with citizens in Quebec.PloS one · 2023Article
- Valuing Healthcare Improvement: Implicit Norms, Explicit Normativity, and Human Agency.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2018Article
- Investigating young women's motivations to engage in early mammography screening in Switzerland: results of a cross-sectional study.BMC cancer · 2017Article
- Common methods of measuring 'informed choice' in screening participation: Challenges and future directions.Preventive medicine reports · 2016Review
- The role of communication in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts.BMC cancer · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore what Australian experts value in breast screening, how these values are conceptualised and prioritised, and how they inform experts' reasoning and judgement about the Australian breast-screening programme.
designQualitative study based on interviews with experts.
participants33 experts, including clinicians, programme managers, policymakers, advocates and researchers selected for their recognisable influence in the Australian breast-screening setting.
settingAustralian breast-screening policy, practice and research settings.
resultsExperts expressed 2 types of values: ethical values (about what was good, important or right) and epistemological values (about how evidence should be created and used). Ethical values included delivering benefit, avoiding harm, promoting autonomy, fairness, cost effectiveness, accountability, professionalism and transparency. Epistemological values informed experts' arguments about prioritising and evaluating evidence methodology, source population and professional interests. Some values were conceptualised differently by experts: for example, delivering benefit could mean reducing breast cancer mortality, reducing all-cause mortality, reducing mortality in younger women, reducing need for aggressive treatment, and/or reassuring women they were cancer free. When values came into conflict, experts prioritised them differently: for example, when experts perceived a conflict between delivering benefits and promoting autonomy, there were differences in which value was prioritised. We explain the complexity of the relationship between held values and experts' overall views on breast cancer screening.
conclusionsExperts' positions in breast screening are influenced by evidence and a wide range of ethical and epistemological values. We conclude that discussions about values should be a regular part of breast-screening review in order to build understanding between those who hold different positions, and provide a mechanism for responding to these differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.