Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Issues underlying the evaluation of screening programmes.

C S Peckham1, C Dezateux

  • 1Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Child Health, London, UK.

British Medical Bulletin
|June 15, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Syphilis screening in pregnancy in the United Kingdom, 2010-2011: a national surveillance study.

BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology·2016
Same author

Hepatitis C virus seroprevalence in pregnant women delivering live-born infants in North Thames, England in 2012.

Epidemiology and infection·2015
Same author

Regional differences in the frequency of the c.985A>G ACADM mutation: findings from a meta-regression of genotyping and screening studies.

Clinical genetics·2013
Same author

Using cohort studies in lifecourse epidemiology.

Public health·2012
Same author

Sex and ethnic differences in the waist circumference of 5-year-old children: findings from the Millennium Cohort Study.

International journal of pediatric obesity : IJPO : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity·2010
Same author

Surveillance of congenital rubella defects.

Archives of disease in childhood·2010
Same journal

Human health in relation to visible, functional, and accessible green space: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the 3 + 30 + 300 guideline.

British medical bulletin·2026
Same journal

Muscle herniae in exercise-induced leg pain: diagnostic pitfalls and the 'repair paradox'.

British medical bulletin·2026
Same journal

Scaffolds and platelet concentrates in bone regenerative medicine: applications, mechanisms, and future approaches.

British medical bulletin·2026
Same journal

Back squat and deadlift fatiguing protocols elicit distinct countermovement jump profiles: phase-specific predictors and soreness responses.

British medical bulletin·2026
Same journal

Enhancing bone healing through osteogenic medium components: biological roles, mechanisms, and clinical applications.

British medical bulletin·2026
Same journal

Moral injury in healthcare workers: causes & interventions.

British medical bulletin·2026
See all related articles

Screening programs can prevent early death and disability but also cause harm. A critical approach ensures beneficial, acceptable, and equitable implementation of new screening initiatives.

Area of Science:

  • Public Health
  • Preventive Medicine
  • Health Services Research

Background:

  • Screening programs offer significant potential benefits, including preventing premature mortality and disability.
  • However, screening initiatives also carry inherent risks and potential for harm.
  • Effective implementation requires careful consideration of benefits, harms, and public acceptability.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To advocate for a more critical evaluation of screening programs.
  • To emphasize the need for developing effective strategies for program implementation.
  • To promote the equitable and acceptable rollout of beneficial screening programs.

Main Methods:

  • This commentary synthesizes current perspectives on screening program evaluation.

Related Experiment Videos

  • It highlights the importance of a rigorous and critical approach to program development.
  • The discussion focuses on strategies for effective and equitable community implementation.

    • Main Results:

    • A critical approach to screening is increasingly being adopted.
    • Efforts are underway to ensure new programs are beneficial and publicly acceptable.
    • Focus is placed on effective and equitable implementation in community settings.

    Conclusions:

    • Rigorous evaluation is essential to maximize the benefits of screening programs.
    • Addressing potential harms and ensuring public acceptability are crucial for success.
    • Effective and equitable implementation strategies are key to realizing the full potential of screening.