Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39899650›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Do health professionals know about overdiagnosis in screening, and how are they dealing with it? A mixed-methods systematic scoping review.

Veerle Piessens, Ann Van den Bruel, An Piessens, Ann Van Hecke, John Brandt Brodersen, Emelien Lauwerier, Florian Stul, An De Sutter, Stefan Heytens

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Veerle PiessensDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for Family Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2305-1762
Ann Van den BruelDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for General Practice, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
An PiessensResearch Centre Pedagogy in Practice, KdG University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8716-3950
Ann Van HeckeDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
John Brandt BrodersenDepartment of Public Health, The Centre of General Practice, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Emelien LauwerierDepartment of Psychology, Open University Netherlands, Heerlen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8439-0354
Florian StulDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for Family Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9329-4479
An De SutterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for Family Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Stefan HeytensDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for Family Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMedical screening is a major driver of overdiagnosis, which should be considered when making an informed screening decision. Health professionals (HPs) often initiate screening and are therefore responsible for informing eligible screening participants about the benefits and harms of screening. However, little is known about HPs' knowledge of overdiagnosis and whether they are prepared to inform screening candidates about this risk and enable people to make an informed screening decision.

methodsThis is a systematic review of studies examining HPs' knowledge and perception of overdiagnosis, whether it affects their position on offering screening, and their willingness to inform screening candidates about overdiagnosis. We conducted systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycArticles without language restrictions. Two authors analysed the qualitative and quantitative data separately. Confidence in the findings of the qualitative data was assessed using the GRADE-CERQual approach.

resultsWe included 23 publications after screening 9786 records. No studies directly examined HPs' knowledge of overdiagnosis. HPs' perceptions of overdiagnosis varied widely, from considering it a significant harm to seeing it as negligible. This seems linked to their overall beliefs about the benefits and harms of screening and to their position on offering screening, which varies from discouraging to actively promoting it. HPs also hold diverging approaches to informing screening candidates about overdiagnosis, from providing detailed explanations to limited or no information.

conclusionThere is a lack of research on HPs' knowledge of overdiagnosis, however, HPs who do know about overdiagnosis attribute substantially different levels of harm to it. This seems intertwined with their overall beliefs about the benefits of screening, their position towards offering screening, and their willingness to inform screening candidates about overdiagnosis. This has important implications for the public's right to evidence-based information and compromises an individual's right to make an informed screening decision.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelMass ScreeningOverdiagnosisHumans

Identifiers

PMID39899650
PMCPMC11790174

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.