Navigating the uncertainties of screening: the contribution of social theory

Why do people take part in atrial fibrillation screening? Qualitative interview study in English primary care

OBJECTIVES

There is insufficient evidence to support national screening programmes for atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, some practitioners, policy-makers and special interest groups have encouraged introduction of opportunistic screening in primary care in order to reduce the incidence of stroke through earlier detection and treatment of AF. The attitudes of the public towards AF screening are unknown. We aimed to explore why AF screening participants took part in the screening.

DESIGN

Semistructured longitudinal interview study of participant engagement in the SAFER study (Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). We undertook initial interviews face to face, with up to two follow-up telephone interviews during the screening process. We thematically analysed and synthesised these data to understand shared views of screening participation.

SETTING

5 primary care practices in the East of England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

23 people taking part in the SAFER study first feasibility phase.

RESULTS

Participants were supportive of screening for AF, explaining their participation in screening as a 'good thing to do'. Participants suggested screening could facilitate earlier diagnosis, more effective treatment, and a better future outcome, despite most being unfamiliar with AF. Participating in AF screening helped attenuate participants' concerns about stroke and demonstrated their commitment to self-care and being a 'good patient'. Participants felt that the screening test was non-invasive, and they were unlikely to have AF; they therefore considered engaging in AF screening was low risk, with few perceived harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants assessed the SAFER AF screening programme to be a legitimate, relevant and safe screening opportunity, and complied obediently with what they perceived to be a recommendation to take part. Their unreserved acceptance of screening benefit and lack of awareness of potential harms suggests that uptake would be high but reinforces the importance of ensuring participants receive balanced information about AF screening initiatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16939438; Pre-results.

Appraising screening, making risk in/visible. The medical debate over Non-Rare Thrombophilia (NRT) testing before prescribing the pill

Non-rare thrombophilia (NRT) are hereditary predispositions to thromboembolism, the most severe side effect of combined hormonal contraception. In the mid-1990s, the identification of NRT stirred up a controversy over the possibility of investigating these genetic variants in women wishing to use contraception. Through a review of literature, this article reconstructs the debate over whether and how this genetic test should be prescribed as a way to reconfigure the risk visibility on pharmacological contraception. The main arguments identified concern the epidemiological, social, economic and clinical aspects of the test. In a context where the overall thrombotic risk for hormonal contraception is largely invisible, the genetic tests turn to embody the thrombotic risk itself. Those who opt for selective screening argue that a better estimation of risk implies a test prescription embed in a global medical assessment of women's individual risk. To advocates of universal or 'extended' screening, the tests are valuable tools to inform women on the thrombotic risk and, as such, appraised as a moral/legal obligation, whatever their predictive power. Risk visibility thus appears as an insightful concept to analyse a complex setting associating clinical, political, social and cultural considerations that touches upon medical power, women's responsibility and drug safety.

Informed Choice and Nudging in Mammography Screening: A Discourse Analysis of Australian and Scandinavian Webpages

The tension between providing adequate information and achieving sufficiently high participation in population-based screening programmes, such as mammography, represents an ongoing challenge for health authorities. The theory of nudge illuminates how individuals may be nudged towards healthy behaviours without restricting individual freedom of choice. We analyse information provided on health authority webpages and uncover the subject positions available to healthy women deciding whether to participate in screening. We do so by comparing different policy contexts where women must opt in to screening (Australia) or opt out (Scandinavia).

We conclude that information is used to nudge women towards screening. Alongside focus on the ease of being screened, tensions exist in simultaneously portraying women as being at risk of breast cancer and providing reassurance of their healthy state. We identify persuasive devices that emphasise responsibility to participate in screening and conclude that webpages play a dynamic role in authorities’ attempts to, on one hand, achieve high participation in screening, and on the other, promote mammography screening as an individual choice.

Why Does Cancer Screening Persist Despite the Potential to Harm?

Population screening for early-stage cancer or cancer precursors began in the mid-twentieth century, with the goal of reducing suffering from cancer illness and lengthening average life by preventing cancer deaths. Since the establishment of cancer screening, concerns have emerged that it may be doing considerable harm; despite this, screening practices have remained relatively intractable. This intractability in the face of harm is the central problematic of my analysis. I reinterpret a large study of breast, cervical and prostate cancer screening completed recently by our Australian research group, working across empirical bioethics, public health and social science. I suggest three reasons why cancer screening might persist as it does, and thus reach conclusions about what might be required to make cancer screening systems more responsive to the potential for harm.

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: a sociological perspective on tackling a contemporary healthcare issue

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are increasingly discussed as a significant problem in contemporary healthcare but are yet to receive any significant sociological attention, over and above that which is arguably transferable from the medicalisation literature. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are often constructed as problems best addressed by educating patients and clinicians, and improving the relationships between them. The emergence of tools seeking to support decision-making and to facilitate patients' asking questions about whether interventions are really necessary supports this conceptualisation. This article questions whether significant traction on overdiagnosis and overtreatment is possible through these means alone, arguing that even when professionals and patients may wish to do less rather than more, the system within which care is delivered and received can make this challenging to achieve. Drawing on Scott's (Sociology, 2018, 52, 3) 'sociology of nothing', the article demonstrates that a sociological perspective on overdiagnosis and overtreatment recasts them as issues that must be understood as a consequence of the organisational, financial and cultural attributes of the system, not just individual interactions, and advances a research agenda for the area.

'They don't know themselves, so how can they tell us?': parents navigating uncertainty at the frontiers of neonatal surgery

When a baby is diagnosed with a condition needing surgery they, and their family, start down an uncertain and unknown path. Living with uncertainty underpins every stage of the journey from hospital to home. These journeys span the highly technical to the mundane. They are likely to involve, at crucial points, medicalised and specialised neonatal and surgical care in paediatric centres of excellence where parents are mere spectators. Yet ultimately parents are able to take their baby home, confident experts in their daily care. Drawing on narrative interviews with 42 UK parents whose baby underwent neonatal surgery, this paper explores how parents navigate this uncertainty through acquiring experiential and lay knowledge and developing expertise in their baby's condition and treatment options. These conditions are rare. Building on sociological understandings of the work of chronic illness, as well as more recent work on newborn screening, sharing information online and examinations of experiential knowledge, we explore lay knowledge and expertise as it intersects with biomedical and surgical frontiers. We demonstrate how the development of expertise is an emergent, three-stage process supported by both biomedical and lay knowledge and elucidate this process of knowledge-building as a scaffold through which to manage uncertainty.

Diagnosing uncertainty: The challenges of implementing medical screening programs for minority sub-populations in Canada

The social science literature on medical screening has documented a notable disjuncture between the promises of population-based screening programs and the complex realities of their rollout in everyday practice. We contribute to this scholarship by examining how healthcare providers confront numerous uncertainties associated with the implementation of anal cancer screening programs in Canada given the absence of standardized national evidence-based guidelines. The data was derived from in-depth interviews conducted with 13 physicians and 2 clinical researchers about anal cancer screening for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men living with HIV, the minority sub-population at the highest risk for HPV-associated anal cancer. Despite having unknown utility and low specificity, an initial anal Pap test was used to triage patients into anal dysplasia clinics for high-resolution anoscopy. This process led to technological scepticism toward the Pap's accuracy, diagnostic ambiguity related to the interpretation of the cytology results and increased patient anxiety regarding abnormal results. Physicians navigated a tension between wanting to avoid exposing their patients to additional uncertainties caused by screening and pre-cancer treatment and wanting to ensure that their patients did not develop anal cancer under their care. A high number of abnormal anal Pap results paradoxically reintroduced some of the capacity issues that the Pap was meant to resolve, as the existing dysplasia clinics were incapable of seeing all patients with abnormal results. We define this sequence as the epistemic-capacity paradox, a dynamic whereby seeking evidence to improve healthcare capacity simultaneously produces evidence that introduces capacity challenges and generates additional uncertainty. The epistemic-capacity paradox demonstrates the limitations of evidence-based medicine frameworks at determining best practices in the context of rarer health conditions affecting minority sub-populations, where smaller population numbers and limited institutional support pose systemic challenges to the acquisition of sufficient evidence.