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
  • 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
    • Trousse média 2021
  • 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
  • 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
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

The future of colorectal cancer screening: Parentalism or shared decision-making?

Michael Bretthauer, Lise M. Helsingen, Mette Kalager, Per-Olav Vandvik, Thomas Agoritsas and Gordon Guyatt
CMAJ May 04, 2020 192 (18) E484; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.74839
Michael Bretthauer
Professor, Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo; Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lise M. Helsingen
Researcher, Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo; Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mette Kalager
Professor, Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo; Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Per-Olav Vandvik
Professor, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Medicine, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Agoritsas
Assistant professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gordon Guyatt
Professor, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In their commentary in CMAJ, Bielawska and Dubé1 criticize our recent guideline on colorectal cancer screening published in BMJ.2 They reason that because screening is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer, screening programs need to be implemented, and all individuals in the target group (defined by age) should participate. For patients who are reluctant to participate, Bielawska and Dubé suggest that providers use risk calculators and decision aids to improve uptake of screening.1

We believe that people are entitled to know the answer to the following questions to make a decision about screening:

  1. What is my risk of the disease and what is my risk of dying from it?

  2. How much do I reduce my risk if I participate in screening?

  3. What are the harms and burdens of screening participation?

One of the reasons our guideline has different recommendations from others is that no previous guideline has explicitly answered these questions by presenting the absolute risk of colorectal cancer and the absolute benefits of screening to reduce that risk, weighed against the burdens and harms.

Bielawska and Dubé are concerned that encouraging informed decision-making by providing individuals with the best possible answers for the 3 questions above would be dangerous, because people may decide that their disease risk or the effect of screening is too small to get screened. We are puzzled by their parental approach.

Bielawska and Dubé are particularly concerned about minority populations and health inequity. We agree with the concern, but we worry about the proposed solution, which is not to inform people, but to persuade them to undergo screening. One cannot assume that equal and high participation across different population groups leads to decreases in health disparity and patient gain. This is because there is no linear relation between screening participation and effectiveness of a screening program, and because screening efficacy in minority communities is more uncertain as they were underrepresented in screening trials.3

Withholding information necessary for people to make informed decisions does not improve public trust or population health. Risk calculators and decision aids are designed to provide easy-to-understand data answering the 3 questions mentioned earlier and thereby enable people to make personal decisions. Some will conclude they want to participate, and some will not. Our task as guideline makers — according to globally accepted standards for trust-worthiness — is to make sure they have that choice by being transparent about how we reached our recommendations and by facilitating informed choices.4 Bielawska and Dubé’s task as screening providers is to ensure access to high-quality screening services for those who want it.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bielawska B,
    2. Dubé C
    . Colorectal cancer screening: It is not time for a radical shift. CMAJ 2020; 192: E51–2.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Helsingen LM,
    2. Vandvik PO,
    3. Jodal HC,
    4. et al
    . Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 2019; 367: l5515.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Bretthauer M,
    2. Kalager M
    . Disparities in preventive health services: targeting minorities and majorities. Ann Intern Med 2020 Jan. 14 [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.7326/M19-3899.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Laine C,
    2. Taichman DB,
    3. Mulrow C
    . Trustworthy clinical guidelines. Ann Intern Med 2011;154: 774–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 192 (18)
CMAJ
Vol. 192, Issue 18
4 May 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

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.
The future of colorectal cancer screening: Parentalism or shared decision-making?
(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
The future of colorectal cancer screening: Parentalism or shared decision-making?
Michael Bretthauer, Lise M. Helsingen, Mette Kalager, Per-Olav Vandvik, Thomas Agoritsas, Gordon Guyatt
CMAJ May 2020, 192 (18) E484; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.74839

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
The future of colorectal cancer screening: Parentalism or shared decision-making?
Michael Bretthauer, Lise M. Helsingen, Mette Kalager, Per-Olav Vandvik, Thomas Agoritsas, Gordon Guyatt
CMAJ May 2020, 192 (18) E484; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.74839
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Colorectal cancer screening: It is not time for a radical shift
  • The authors respond to “The future of colorectal cancer screening: Parentalism or shared decision-making?”
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The authors respond to "The future of colorectal cancer screening: Parentalism or shared decision-making?"
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Building research infrastructure across a health service
  • A safe return to sport and the right to play during COVID-19
  • Simple-language tool to guide patients in recovery after prolonged treatment in the intensive care unit
Show more Letters

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.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire