IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v122y2018i12p1364-1371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘I just want to be able to make a choice’: Results from citizen deliberations about mammography screening in Ontario, Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Abelson, Julia
  • Tripp, Laura
  • Sussman, Jonathan

Abstract

Despite Canada’s long history with mammography screening, little is known about citizens’ perspectives about mammography and how best to support women to make informed choices about screening. To address this gap, a series of four citizen deliberation events were held in 2015-16 in Ontario, a Canadian province with an organized population-based breast screening program in place since 1990. Forty-nine individuals participated in four citizen panels, each comprising an information session highlighting the evidence about mammography, and large- and small-group deliberations about approaches to support informed decision making for screening. Following their engagement with the research evidence about mammography, participants expressed concern about their lack of full awareness of the risks and benefits and a strong desire for choice when it comes to screening. To support informed choice, mammography programs need to reflect the values of information sharing, trust and transparency, financial accountability, and allow for personal interactions and shared decision-making. Citizens are looking for balanced information about the risks and benefits of screening presented in an easy to understand, comprehensive, and transparent manner. Primary health care providers and organized screening programs are important sources of information about mammography and must be vigilant in their efforts to support informed decision-making in this area by ensuring that the information materials they are using are balanced and reflect current evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Abelson, Julia & Tripp, Laura & Sussman, Jonathan, 2018. "‘I just want to be able to make a choice’: Results from citizen deliberations about mammography screening in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(12), pages 1364-1371.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:12:p:1364-1371
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.09.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851018305244
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.09.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul, Charlotte & Nicholls, Rachel & Priest, Patricia & McGee, Rob, 2008. "Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: The role of citizens' deliberation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 314-320, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Street, Jackie & Duszynski, Katherine & Krawczyk, Stephanie & Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2014. "The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-9.
    2. Parker, Lisa, 2017. "Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 793-799.
    3. De Vries, Raymond & Stanczyk, Aimee & Wall, Ian F. & Uhlmann, Rebecca & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kim, Scott Y., 2010. "Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1896-1903, June.
    4. Carman, Kristin L. & Mallery, Coretta & Maurer, Maureen & Wang, Grace & Garfinkel, Steve & Yang, Manshu & Gilmore, Dierdre & Windham, Amy & Ginsburg, Marjorie & Sofaer, Shoshanna & Gold, Marthe & Path, 2015. "Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 11-20.
    5. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:12:p:1364-1371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.