Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33725216›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2021

Ethico-Political Aspects of Conceptualizing Screening: The Case of Dementia.

Martin Gunnarson, Alexandra Kapeller, Kristin Zeiler

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin GunnarsonDepartment of Thematic Studies, Division of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. martin.gunnarson@sh.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6989-3212
Alexandra KapellerDepartment of Thematic Studies, Division of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1989-2016
Kristin ZeilerDepartment of Thematic Studies, Division of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2862-3731
Linköping University · SE

Funding

Vetenskapsrådet Dnr 2016-00781
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the value of early detection of dementia is largely agreed upon, population-based screening as a means of early detection is controversial. This controversial status means that such screening is not recommended in most national dementia plans. Some current practices, however, resemble screening but are labelled "case-finding" or "detection of cognitive impairment". Labelled as such, they may avoid the ethical scrutiny that population-based screening may be subject to. This article examines conceptualizations of screening and case-finding. It shows how the definitions and delimitations of the concepts (the what of screening) are drawn into the ethical, political, and practical dimensions that screening assessment criteria or principles are intended to clarify and control (the how of screening, how it is and how it should be performed). As a result, different conceptualizations of screening provide the opportunity to rethink what ethical assessments should take place: the conceptualizations have different ethico-political implications. The article argues that population-based systematic screening, population-based opportunistic screening, and case-finding should be clearly distinguished.

Indexed as

DementiaMass ScreeningHumansCase-findingConceptualizationsDementiaPerformativityScreening

Identifiers

PMID33725216
PMCPMC8560671
OpenAlexW3137923888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.