Suchergebnisse

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.

The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Bioethics is an outstanding resource for anyone with an interest in feminist
bioethics, with chapters covering topics from justice and power to the climate crisis. Comprising forty-two
chapters by emerging and established scholars, the volume is divided into six parts:
I Foundations of feminist bioethics
II Identity and identifications
III Science, technology and research
IV Health and social care
V Reproduction and making families
VI Widening the scope of feminist bioethics
The volume is essential reading for anyone with an interest in bioethics or feminist philosophy, and will prove
an invaluable resource for scholars, teachers and advanced students.

Background:Organised cervical screening programmes are a combination of arrangements designed to maximise benefit and minimise harm associated with cervical cancer at the population level. Many organised programmes are described as 'evidence-based', reflecting an expectation that healthcare should be based on the tenets of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). EBM is both normalised and contested.
Aims and objectives:As part of a larger study of how cervical screening came to be the way it is, we conducted a grounded theory study of cervical screening experts' perspectives on evidence and its use in guideline development processes.
Methods:We sampled from several countries and across a range of professional backgrounds. Analysis was developed through transcript coding and memo writing, using constant comparison to develop insight and connections between concepts.
Findings:We found that the 'evidence-based' descriptor was used rhetorically to indicate scientific trustworthiness; in short 'evidence-based' indicated 'good'. Experts held ideal conceptions of evidence and its use as objective and value-free, yet reported experiences that suggested those ideals were unattainable in practice. The 'evidence-based' ideal included restricting what counts as evidence to matters of science and epidemiology. This produced pronounced attention to matters of efficacy and effectiveness of cervical screening tests, and neglected decisions relating to the other arrangements that combine to produce an organised screening programme.
Discussion and conclusions:Rhetorical use of the 'evidence-based brand' appeals to a particular kind of authority: one which is difficult to achieve in practice, and belies the variety of information that is required and the socially negotiated nature of policy and programme decisions.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to identify how the topic of overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening is framed by experts and to clarify differences and similarities within these frames in terms of problems, causes, values and solutions. Methods We used a qualitative methodology using interviews with breast screening experts across Australia and applying framing theory to map and analyse their views about overdiagnosis. We interviewed 33 breast screening experts who influence the public and/or policy makers via one or more of: public or academic commentary; senior service management; government advisory bodies; professional committees; non-government/consumer organisations. Experts were currently or previously working in breast screening in a variety of roles including clinical practice, research, service provision and policy, consumer representation and advocacy. Results Each expert used one or more of six frames to conceptualise overdiagnosis in breast screening. Frames are described as: Overdiagnosis is harming women; Stop squabbling in public; Don't hide the problem from women; We need to know the overdiagnosis rate; Balancing harms and benefits is a personal matter; and The problem is overtreatment. Each frame contains a different but internally coherent account of what the problem is, the causes and solutions, and a moral evaluation. Some of the frames are at least partly commensurable with each other; others are strongly incommensurable. Conclusions Experts have very different ways of framing overdiagnosis in breast screening. This variation may contribute to the ongoing controversy in this topic. The concept of experts using different frames when thinking and talking about overdiagnosis might be a useful tool for those who are trying to negotiate the complexity of expert disagreement in order to participate in decisions about screening.

Much of the evidence translation literature focuses narrowly on the use of evidence in the initial policy formulation stages, and downplays the crucial role of institutions and the inherently political nature of policy making. More recent approaches acknowledge the importance of institutional and political factors, but make no attempt to incorporate their influence into new models of evidence translation. To address this issue, this article uses data from a comparative case study of bowel cancer screening policy in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, to propose alternative models of evidence incorporation which apply to all stages of the policy process.

IntroductionLarge volumes of health data are generated through the interaction of individuals with hospitals, government agencies and health care providers. There is potential in the linkage and sharing of administrative data with private industry to support improved drug and device provision but data sharing is highly contentious.
Objectives and ApproachWe conducted a scoping review of quantitative and qualitative studies examining public attitudes towards the sharing of health data, held by government, with private industry for research and development. We searched four data bases, PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl and Web of Science as well as Google Scholar and Google Advanced. The search was confined to English-only publications since January 2014 but was not geographically limited. We thematically coded included papers.
ResultsWe screened 6788 articles. Thirty-six studies were included primarily from UK and North America. No Australian studies were identified. Across studies, willingness to share non-identified data was generally high with the participant's own health provider (84-91%) and academic researchers (64-93%) but fell if the data was to be shared with private industry (14-53%). There was widespread misunderstanding of the benefits of sharing data for health research. Publics expressed concern about a range of issues including data security, misuse of data and use of data to generate profit. Conditions which would increase public confidence in sharing of data included: strict safeguards on data collection and use including secure storage, opt-in or opt-out consent mechanisms, and good communication through trusted agents.
Conclusion / ImplicationsWe identified a research gap: Australian views on sharing government health data with private industry. The international experience suggests that public scepticism about data sharing with private industry will need to be addressed by good communication about public benefit of data sharing, a strong program of public engagement and information sharing conducted through trusted entities.

Breast cancer care is a leading area for development of artificial intelligence (AI), with applications including screening and diagnosis, risk calculation, prognostication and clinical decision-support, management planning, and precision medicine. We review the ethical, legal and social implications of these developments. We consider the values encoded in algorithms, the need to evaluate outcomes, and issues of bias and transferability, data ownership, confidentiality and consent, and legal, moral and professional responsibility. We consider potential effects for patients, including on trust in healthcare, and provide some social science explanations for the apparent rush to implement AI solutions. We conclude by anticipating future directions for AI in breast cancer care. Stakeholders in healthcare AI should acknowledge that their enterprise is an ethical, legal and social challenge, not just a technical challenge. Taking these challenges seriously will require broad engagement, imposition of conditions on implementation, and pre-emptive systems of oversight to ensure that development does not run ahead of evaluation and deliberation. Once artificial intelligence becomes institutionalised, it may be difficult to reverse: a proactive role for government, regulators and professional groups will help ensure introduction in robust research contexts, and the development of a sound evidence base regarding real-world effectiveness. Detailed public discussion is required to consider what kind of AI is acceptable rather than simply accepting what is offered, thus optimising outcomes for health systems, professionals, society and those receiving care.

Bowel cancer is a serious health problem in developed countries. Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ) reviewed the same randomised controlled trial evidence on the benefits and harms of population-based bowel cancer screening. Yet only NZ, with the highest age standardised rate of bowel cancer mortality, decided against introducing a bowel cancer screening programme. This case study of policy making explores the unique resource, ethical, institutional and political environments in which the evidence was considered. It highlights the centrality of context in assessing the relative worth of evidence in policy making and raises questions about the suitability of knowledge utilisation strategies.

IntroductionLarge administrative datasets are now being used for secondary purposes across a wide range of public sector organisations, including in health and higher education. However, governance, regulation and policy surrounding the use of these datasets are at different stages of development in these sectors. Our aim was to explore similarities and differences in the use of administrative data between the health and higher education sectors to inform policy development.
Objectives and ApproachWe investigated views on the use of administrative data in both the health and higher education sectors. We conducted 18 qualitative in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, to provide insight into the ethical, social and legal issues associated with the use of big data in these settings. The interviews were transcribed and thematically coded.
ResultsParticipants indicated the rapid pace of technological change and large volume of potentially sensitive data collected raises governance, infrastructure and ethical issues in both settings. Common challenges include communication, staff capabilities, delays in access, multiple policies and governance committees, and technical and operational issues. In the health sector, there was clear understanding of the issues and governance structures to address these issues, whereas this understanding was more variable in the higher education sector. Trust in government (to use responsibly and store securely) was raised in the health sector but not in universities.
Conclusion / ImplicationsUnderstanding and use of administrative data are at quite different levels of development in the higher education and health sectors. Higher education needs policy and ethical guidance and higher level governance and greater consultation across the sector. Both sectors would benefit from a national approach to data governance.

This paper explores the enormous variation in views, championing behaviours and impacts of liaison people: staff nominated to facilitate, tailor and promote SPIRIT (a research utilisation intervention trial in six Australian health policy agencies). Liaison people made cost/benefit analyses: they weighed the value of participation against its risks and demands in the context of organisational goals, knowledge utilisation norms, epistemology and leadership support. There was a degree of self-fulfilment (organisations got what they put in), but SPIRIT could not always be tailored to address local knowledge needs. We present nine propositions for identifying and supporting liaison people in similar interventions.

Objective: To elicit informed views from Australian women aged 70–74 regarding the acceptability of ceasing to invite women their age to participate in government-funded mammography screening (BreastScreen). Design: Two community juries held in 2017. Setting: Greater Sydney, a metropolis of 4.5 million people in New South Wales, Australia. Participants: 34 women aged 70–74 with no personal history of breast cancer, recruited by random digit dialling and previously randomly recruited list-based samples.