乳房x光检查:唤起知情公民的声音。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-01-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0317263
Manja D Jensen, Kasper M Hansen, Volkert Siersma, John Brodersen
{"title":"乳房x光检查:唤起知情公民的声音。","authors":"Manja D Jensen, Kasper M Hansen, Volkert Siersma, John Brodersen","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0317263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many medical organisations recommend continuing with existing mammography screening programmes but some recommend stopping or de-intensifying them. In Denmark women aged 50-69 are offered biennial mammograms free-of-charge.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to determine whether or not an informed public would recommend continuation of the Danish mammography screening programme, and to determine whether this recommendation was in line with what participants considered to be acceptable levels of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Deliberative Poll on mammography screening was held online in Denmark and 89 citizens participated. They were representative of the general population on sociodemographic parameters, attitudes towards and knowledge of mammography screening. Participants studied a video about the programme and took part in an online citizens' assembly where they deliberated with peers and experts in the field. All participants answered a survey at four time points: at recruitment; after video information; after deliberation, and a month after the assembly.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Questionnaire data revealed that many participants were influenced by the deliberative polling process as 36%, changed their recommendation afterwards. At recruitment, 72% of participants strongly supported the continuation of mammography screening. This proportion was lower after the presentation of video information (55%), after deliberation (65%), and a month after the assembly (58%). Interestingly, these changes in recommendation were not correlated to changes in knowledge. The proportion of participants who recommended continuation following what they stated were acceptable rates of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis rose from 21% at recruitment to 40% after information and deliberation. Most participants (60%), therefore, made a recommendation that was not in line with levels of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis that they felt were acceptable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After video information and deliberation participants were less supportive of the mammography screening programme compared to their immediate recommendation at the beginning of the process.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 1","pages":"e0317263"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11717236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mammography screening: Eliciting the voices of informed citizens.\",\"authors\":\"Manja D Jensen, Kasper M Hansen, Volkert Siersma, John Brodersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0317263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many medical organisations recommend continuing with existing mammography screening programmes but some recommend stopping or de-intensifying them. In Denmark women aged 50-69 are offered biennial mammograms free-of-charge.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to determine whether or not an informed public would recommend continuation of the Danish mammography screening programme, and to determine whether this recommendation was in line with what participants considered to be acceptable levels of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Deliberative Poll on mammography screening was held online in Denmark and 89 citizens participated. They were representative of the general population on sociodemographic parameters, attitudes towards and knowledge of mammography screening. Participants studied a video about the programme and took part in an online citizens' assembly where they deliberated with peers and experts in the field. All participants answered a survey at four time points: at recruitment; after video information; after deliberation, and a month after the assembly.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Questionnaire data revealed that many participants were influenced by the deliberative polling process as 36%, changed their recommendation afterwards. At recruitment, 72% of participants strongly supported the continuation of mammography screening. This proportion was lower after the presentation of video information (55%), after deliberation (65%), and a month after the assembly (58%). Interestingly, these changes in recommendation were not correlated to changes in knowledge. The proportion of participants who recommended continuation following what they stated were acceptable rates of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis rose from 21% at recruitment to 40% after information and deliberation. Most participants (60%), therefore, made a recommendation that was not in line with levels of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis that they felt were acceptable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After video information and deliberation participants were less supportive of the mammography screening programme compared to their immediate recommendation at the beginning of the process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"e0317263\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11717236/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317263\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317263","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:许多医疗机构建议继续现有的乳房x光检查计划,但有些建议停止或去强化。在丹麦,50-69岁的女性可以免费接受两年一次的乳房x光检查。目的:本研究的目的是确定知情的公众是否会建议继续丹麦乳房x光检查计划,并确定这一建议是否符合参与者认为可接受的死亡率降低和过度诊断水平。方法:在丹麦进行乳房x线摄影筛查的网上协商投票,共有89名公民参与。他们在社会人口学参数、对乳房x光检查的态度和知识方面代表了一般人群。参与者观看了一段有关该计划的视频,并参加了一个在线公民大会,在那里他们与该领域的同行和专家进行了讨论。所有参与者在四个时间点回答了一项调查:招聘时;后视频信息;经过商议,又经过一个月的集会。结果:问卷调查数据显示,36%的参与者受到审议投票过程的影响,之后改变了他们的建议。在招募时,72%的参与者强烈支持继续进行乳房x光检查。这一比例在提交视频信息后(55%)、审议后(65%)、会议一个月后(58%)较低。有趣的是,这些建议的变化与知识的变化无关。建议按照他们所说的可接受的死亡率降低率和过度诊断率继续治疗的参与者比例从招募时的21%上升到信息和审议后的40%。因此,大多数参与者(60%)提出的建议与他们认为可接受的死亡率降低和过度诊断水平不一致。结论:经过视频信息和审议后,参与者对乳房x线摄影筛查方案的支持程度低于他们在该过程开始时的直接建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Mammography screening: Eliciting the voices of informed citizens.

Mammography screening: Eliciting the voices of informed citizens.

Mammography screening: Eliciting the voices of informed citizens.

Mammography screening: Eliciting the voices of informed citizens.

Background: Many medical organisations recommend continuing with existing mammography screening programmes but some recommend stopping or de-intensifying them. In Denmark women aged 50-69 are offered biennial mammograms free-of-charge.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether or not an informed public would recommend continuation of the Danish mammography screening programme, and to determine whether this recommendation was in line with what participants considered to be acceptable levels of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis.

Methods: A Deliberative Poll on mammography screening was held online in Denmark and 89 citizens participated. They were representative of the general population on sociodemographic parameters, attitudes towards and knowledge of mammography screening. Participants studied a video about the programme and took part in an online citizens' assembly where they deliberated with peers and experts in the field. All participants answered a survey at four time points: at recruitment; after video information; after deliberation, and a month after the assembly.

Results: Questionnaire data revealed that many participants were influenced by the deliberative polling process as 36%, changed their recommendation afterwards. At recruitment, 72% of participants strongly supported the continuation of mammography screening. This proportion was lower after the presentation of video information (55%), after deliberation (65%), and a month after the assembly (58%). Interestingly, these changes in recommendation were not correlated to changes in knowledge. The proportion of participants who recommended continuation following what they stated were acceptable rates of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis rose from 21% at recruitment to 40% after information and deliberation. Most participants (60%), therefore, made a recommendation that was not in line with levels of mortality reduction and overdiagnosis that they felt were acceptable.

Conclusion: After video information and deliberation participants were less supportive of the mammography screening programme compared to their immediate recommendation at the beginning of the process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信