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

[Is prevention better than healing?].

Ingrid Mühlhauser1

  • 1Universität Hamburg, MIN Fakultät, Fachwissenschaft Gesundheit, Hamburg. Ingrid_Muehlhauser@uni-hamburg.de

Zeitschrift Fur Arztliche Fortbildung Und Qualitatssicherung
|August 23, 2007
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

[Evaluation of the public health measures introduced during the coronavirus pandemic: Evidence-based risk communication must be a central topic].

Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen·2024
Same author

Methodological Error.

Deutsches Arzteblatt international·2021
Same author

Nurse-led coaching of shared decision-making for women with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast care centers: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

International journal of nursing studies·2019
Same author

Communicating prognosis to women with early breast cancer - overview of prediction tools and the development and pilot testing of a decision aid.

BMC health services research·2019
Same author

Informed shared decision-making programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial.

BMJ open·2018
Same author

Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey.

PloS one·2018

Preventive and screening interventions are often misunderstood and can cause harm, despite enthusiasm. Rigorous scientific evaluation is crucial before implementing health initiatives to avoid potential harms like overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Area of Science:

  • Preventive medicine
  • Clinical trial methodology
  • Medical ethics

Background:

  • Preventive and screening interventions are widely perceived as beneficial.
  • However, significant misunderstandings exist regarding their true capabilities and limitations.
  • Numerous high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have documented detrimental failures of such initiatives.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the evidence supporting preventive and screening interventions.
  • To highlight the potential harms associated with these initiatives, including overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
  • To emphasize the necessity of rigorous scientific evaluation and ethical information dissemination for all prevention programs.

Main Methods:

  • Review of findings from large, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of documented failures and harms of specific preventive and screening initiatives.
  • Assessment of the evidence base for various widely promoted health checks and screenings.

    • Main Results:

    • Many preventive initiatives, including vitamin supplementation and hormone therapy, have shown detrimental effects.
    • Systematic breast self-examination may cause more harm than good.
    • Evidence supporting many common health checks and screenings (e.g., for cancer, diabetes) is often lacking or weak.
    • Screening programs can lead to overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and psychological distress, benefiting few while harming many.

    Conclusions:

    • Preventive and screening programs require robust scientific evaluation, including evidence from high-quality RCTs, before implementation.
    • Potential harms, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment, must be carefully weighed against benefits.
    • Ethical guidelines mandate complete, unbiased, and understandable information for participants, including the option of non-participation without penalty.