Perspectives of international experts and the Danish citizens on the 'relevant knowledge' that citizens need for making informed choices about participation in cancer screening: Qualitative study.
Rikke Nicoline Stokholm, Pia Kirkegaard, Mette Bach Larsen and 12 others
PMID 39488032WHAT IT FOUND
Danish citizens and screening experts mostly agreed informed choice needs disease facts, test details, benefits, simple numbers, and non-participation options.
Citizens often found harms like false positives and over-diagnosis hard to understand and less useful than benefits.
Key findings
01The study identified five areas participants linked to informed choice: disease and symptoms, screening composition, benefits and harms, numeric information, and the option of non-participation.
02Experts said citizens should understand both benefits and harms, but most citizens found concepts such as false positives, false negatives, over-diagnosis and overtreatment challenging.
03Citizens said they needed practical details about the screening process, results, and follow-up, including that a positive screening result does not necessarily mean cancer.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Most citizens were already screening participants, so the study may not capture what people who decline need to know. Only Danish citizens were included, so views may differ in other countries and screening systems. Experts were from OECD countries only, so perspectives may differ in lower-income settings. The study covered breast, colorectal and cervical screening only, not other screening programmes. Participants reported what they thought they needed to know; the study did not test whether this information improved decisions.
Declared interests
The authors declare no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that this information improves informed choices or screening uptake. It reports participants' stated views, not outcomes of a communication intervention.