The mammography screening controversy: who and what is heard in the press?
Saved in:
| Title: | The mammography screening controversy: who and what is heard in the press? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Holmes-Rovner M (AUTHOR), Charles S (AUTHOR), Holmes-Rovner, Margaret1 (AUTHOR), Charles, Sonya (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Patient Education & Counseling. Sep2003, Vol. 51 Issue 1, p75-81. 7p. |
| Abstract: | The objective of this project was to analyze newspaper coverage of the January 2000 meta-analysis by Gotzsche and Olsen, "Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justified?" [Lancet 355 (2000) 129]. A content analysis was performed on a comprehensive set of newspaper clippings from the UK during the 2 weeks following publication of the Lancet article. The original authors were most quoted in Wave 1 (the first weekend); the screening programme was most quoted in Wave 2 (week 2). Screening programme description, and the "quality" of the Lancet article dominated Wave 1; patient testimonials increased in Wave 2. Newspaper articles were structured as debates between experts and advocates, thereby enhancing polarisation of opinion. We suggest this is counter-productive to evidence-based patient choice and public involvement in decision-making. Medical journals' and charities' press releases that begin to include discussion of uncertainty inherent in medical technologies can contribute to evidence-based public deliberation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Patient Education & Counseling is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 106691679 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The mammography screening controversy: who and what is heard in the press? – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holmes-Rovner+M%22">Holmes-Rovner M</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Charles+S%22">Charles S</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holmes-Rovner%2C+Margaret%22">Holmes-Rovner, Margaret</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Charles%2C+Sonya%22">Charles, Sonya</searchLink> (AUTHOR) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Patient+Education+%26+Counseling%22">Patient Education & Counseling</searchLink>. Sep2003, Vol. 51 Issue 1, p75-81. 7p. – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The objective of this project was to analyze newspaper coverage of the January 2000 meta-analysis by Gotzsche and Olsen, "Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justified?" [Lancet 355 (2000) 129]. A content analysis was performed on a comprehensive set of newspaper clippings from the UK during the 2 weeks following publication of the Lancet article. The original authors were most quoted in Wave 1 (the first weekend); the screening programme was most quoted in Wave 2 (week 2). Screening programme description, and the "quality" of the Lancet article dominated Wave 1; patient testimonials increased in Wave 2. Newspaper articles were structured as debates between experts and advocates, thereby enhancing polarisation of opinion. We suggest this is counter-productive to evidence-based patient choice and public involvement in decision-making. Medical journals' and charities' press releases that begin to include discussion of uncertainty inherent in medical technologies can contribute to evidence-based public deliberation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Patient Education & Counseling is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=106691679 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00167-2 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 7 StartPage: 75 Titles: – TitleFull: The mammography screening controversy: who and what is heard in the press? Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Holmes-Rovner M – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Charles S – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Holmes-Rovner, Margaret – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Charles, Sonya IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 09 Text: Sep2003 Type: published Y: 2003 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 07383991 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 51 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Patient Education & Counseling Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
