English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objective   To investigate whether invitations for publicly funded cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable an informed choice about participation.Design   Cross-sectional study using a checklist of 23 information items on benefits and harms from cervical screening and the risks related to cervical cancer.Material   Invitations to publicly funded cervical screening in 10 Scandinavian and English-speaking countries.Setting   Ten Scandinavian and English speaking countries.Participants   Sixteen screening units representing 10 Scandinavian and English speaking countries.Main outcome measures   Number of information items presented in invitations for cervical screening.Results   We contacted 21 coordinating units from 11 countries and 20 (95%) responded. Of these, four units did not issue invitations, but the remaining 16 coordinating units in 10 different countries supplied a sample. The invitations for cervical screening were generally information poor and contained a median of only four out of 23 information items possible (17%), ranging from 0 to 12 (0–52%). The most important harms of cancer screening, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, were typically downplayed or unmentioned. The same applied to other important harms, such as false-positive results and the psychological consequences from an abnormal test result. The majority of invitations took a paternalistic approach. While only two invitations (17%) included a pre-assigned appointment date, eight (70%) of the invitations contained strong appeals for participation.Conclusions   Invitations to cervical cancer screening were information poor and biased in favour of participation. This means that informed choice is not possible, which is in conflict with modern requirements for personal involvement in medical decisions.

journal of the royal society of medicine

Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening