Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Research

Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process

Mark J. Dobrow, Victoria Hagens, Roger Chafe, Terrence Sullivan and Linda Rabeneck
CMAJ April 09, 2018 190 (14) E422-E429; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.171154
Mark J. Dobrow
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Dobrow, Sullivan, Rabeneck), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Cancer Care Ontario (Hagens, Rabeneck), Toronto, Ont.; Memorial University of Newfoundland (Chafe), St. John’s, NL; Department of Medicine (Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Victoria Hagens
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Dobrow, Sullivan, Rabeneck), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Cancer Care Ontario (Hagens, Rabeneck), Toronto, Ont.; Memorial University of Newfoundland (Chafe), St. John’s, NL; Department of Medicine (Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Roger Chafe
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Dobrow, Sullivan, Rabeneck), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Cancer Care Ontario (Hagens, Rabeneck), Toronto, Ont.; Memorial University of Newfoundland (Chafe), St. John’s, NL; Department of Medicine (Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Terrence Sullivan
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Dobrow, Sullivan, Rabeneck), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Cancer Care Ontario (Hagens, Rabeneck), Toronto, Ont.; Memorial University of Newfoundland (Chafe), St. John’s, NL; Department of Medicine (Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Linda Rabeneck
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Dobrow, Sullivan, Rabeneck), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Cancer Care Ontario (Hagens, Rabeneck), Toronto, Ont.; Memorial University of Newfoundland (Chafe), St. John’s, NL; Department of Medicine (Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Principles for screening: too few concerns for informed consent?
    alain braillon, Philippe Nicot and Cécile Bour
    Posted on: 24 April 2018
  • Posted on: (24 April 2018)
    Principles for screening: too few concerns for informed consent?
    • alain braillon, senior consultant, University hospital. 80000 Amiens. France. braillon.alain@gmail.com
    • Other Contributors:
      • Philippe Nicot, GP
      • Cécile Bour, Radiologist

    Dobrow et al must be commended for their comprehensive but simple review of screening principles with three chapters: a) Disease/condition, b) Test/intervention; c) program/system.(1) The latter is too frequently overlooked despite screening is far more than a test for a disease, it should be first a public health program with quality insurance. Sadly, resources are a constraint. However, principle 9 “informed choice, promoting autonomy and protecting (participants) rights” is simple and cheap to implement.

    Pictographs with absolute numbers (using a consistent denominator, such as/1000 screened), time frames and visuals employing the same scale for information on gains and losses of the options are evidence based.(2)The small kingdom of Belgium has been implementing this since 2013 for breast cancer screening. In contrast, the French National Cancer Institute , as other health agencies, flies in the face of ethics, refusing to provide such information despite serial public requests since 2012, even the most recent one supported by the main French consumers NGO.(3) Worse, this has been associated with: a) torture of the data to deny the overdiagnostic, also refusing scientific debate;(4) b) the inclusion of screening uptake in the 4P4 scheme with the legalization of an unbalanced information: “the general practitioner draws the patient’s attention to the benefits of (breast cancer) screening. . . produces positive information about screening. . . which naturally f...

    Show More

    Dobrow et al must be commended for their comprehensive but simple review of screening principles with three chapters: a) Disease/condition, b) Test/intervention; c) program/system.(1) The latter is too frequently overlooked despite screening is far more than a test for a disease, it should be first a public health program with quality insurance. Sadly, resources are a constraint. However, principle 9 “informed choice, promoting autonomy and protecting (participants) rights” is simple and cheap to implement.

    Pictographs with absolute numbers (using a consistent denominator, such as/1000 screened), time frames and visuals employing the same scale for information on gains and losses of the options are evidence based.(2)The small kingdom of Belgium has been implementing this since 2013 for breast cancer screening. In contrast, the French National Cancer Institute , as other health agencies, flies in the face of ethics, refusing to provide such information despite serial public requests since 2012, even the most recent one supported by the main French consumers NGO.(3) Worse, this has been associated with: a) torture of the data to deny the overdiagnostic, also refusing scientific debate;(4) b) the inclusion of screening uptake in the 4P4 scheme with the legalization of an unbalanced information: “the general practitioner draws the patient’s attention to the benefits of (breast cancer) screening. . . produces positive information about screening. . . which naturally falls within the scope of mere monitoring. . . in order to remove his patients’ reticence”.(5)

    1 Dobrow MJ, Hagens V, Chafe R, Sullivan T, Rabeneck L. Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process. CMAJ 2018;190:E422-E429.

    2 Braillon A, Bewley S. Shared decision-making for cancer screening: Visual tools and a 4-Step Method. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1862.

    3 Collective. [Breast cancer. The National Cancer Institute provide women with incomplete and partial information on the advantages and disadvantages of organized breast cancer screening]. Que Chosir. 6 April 2016 Available at https://www.quechoisir.org/action-ufc-que-choisir-cancer-du-sein-l-inca-... Accessed 20 April 2018.

    4 Braillon A, Bewley S. Why use Markov simulation models for estimating the effect of cancer screening policies when randomised controlled trials provide better evidence? Stat Methods Med Res.2012;21:217-8.

    5 Braillon A, Nicot P Cancer screening and informed consent. A new French exception? Prev Med 2011;53:437

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 190 (14)
CMAJ
Vol. 190, Issue 14
9 Apr 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process
Mark J. Dobrow, Victoria Hagens, Roger Chafe, Terrence Sullivan, Linda Rabeneck
CMAJ Apr 2018, 190 (14) E422-E429; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.171154

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process
Mark J. Dobrow, Victoria Hagens, Roger Chafe, Terrence Sullivan, Linda Rabeneck
CMAJ Apr 2018, 190 (14) E422-E429; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.171154
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Can we improve on Wilson and Jungner’s principles of screening for disease?
  • Principles for screening: Too few concerns for informed consent and shared decision-making?
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Assessment of vitamin B12 deficiency and B12 screening trends for patients on metformin: a retrospective cohort case review
  • Ethical considerations for universal newborn hearing screening in the Pacific Islands: a Samoan case study
  • Early Detection of CKD: Implications for Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries
  • A discussion on controversies and ethical dilemmas in prostate cancer screening
  • Examining the information needed for acceptance of deintensified screening programmes: qualitative focus groups about cervical screening in Australia
  • Principles for screening: Too few concerns for informed consent and shared decision-making?
  • Can we improve on Wilson and Jungners principles of screening for disease?
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Emergency department use following incentives to provide after-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort study
  • Physician choices in pulmonary embolism testing
  • Symptoms associated with a positive result for a swab for SARS-CoV-2 infection among children in Alberta
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire