Journal
PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages -Publisher
PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125165
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP) grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [633003]
- Australia Fellowship grant: Glasziou NHMRC [527500]
- Bond University Vice-Chancellors Research Grant
- NHRMC (STEP) [633003]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background Despite evidence about the modern epidemic of overdiagnosis, and expanding disease definitions that medicalize more people, data are lacking on public views about these issues. Our objective was to measure public perceptions about overdiagnosis and views about financial ties of panels setting disease definitions. Methods We conducted a 15 minute Computer Assisted Telephone Interview with a randomly selected community sample of 500 Australians in January 2014. We iteratively developed and piloted a questionnaire, with a convenience sample (n= 20), then with participants recruited by a research company (n= 20). Questions included whether respondents had been informed about overdiagnosis; opinions on informing people; and views about financial ties among panels writing disease definitions. Findings Our sample was generally representative, but included a higher proportion of females and seniors, typical of similar surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate was 20% and cooperation rate was 44%. Only 10% (95% CI 8%-13%) of people reported ever being told about overdiagnosis by a doctor. 18% (95% CI 11%-28%) of men who reported having prostate cancer screening, and 10% (95% CI 6%-15%) of women who reported having mammography said they were told about overdiagnosis. 93% (95% CI 90%-95%) agreed along with screening benefits, people should be informed about overdiagnosis. On panels setting disease definitions, 78% (95% CI 74%-82%) felt ties to pharmaceutical companies inappropriate, and 91% (95% CI 82%-100%) believed panels should have a minority or no members with ties. Limitations included questionnaire novelty and complexity. Conclusions A small minority of Australians surveyed, including those reporting being screened for prostate or breast cancer, reported being informed of overdiagnosis; most believed people should be informed; and a majority felt it inappropriate that doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies write disease definitions. Results suggest strategies to better inform people about overdiagnosis, and review disease definition processes, have significant public sympathy.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available