Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36727101›Full record

ArticlePublic health ethics2022

Informed Decision-Making and Capabilities in Population-based Cancer Screening.

Ineke L L E Bolt, Maartje H N Schermer, Hanna Bomhof-Roordink, Danielle R M Timmermans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health ethics, 2022. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Ineke L L E BoltDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy & History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9575-1354
Maartje H N SchermerDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy & History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4283-9659
Hanna Bomhof-RoordinkDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Danielle R M TimmermansDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informed decision-making (IDM) is considered an important ethical and legal requirement for population-based screening. Governments offering such screening have a duty to enable invitees to make informed decisions regarding participation. Various views exist on how to define and measure IDM in different screening programmes. In this paper we first address the question which components should be part of IDM in the context of cancer screening. Departing from two diverging interpretations of the value of autonomy-as a right and as an ideal-we describe how this value is operationalized in the practice of informed consent in medicine and translate this to IDM in population-based cancer screening. Next, we specify components of IDM, which is voluntariness and the requirements of disclosure and understanding. We argue that whereas disclosure should contain all information considered relevant in order to enable

Identifiers

PMID36727101
PMCPMC9883722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.