Although many individuals and organizations may endorse the goal of screening programs, the details and implementation are often controversial. For some types of screening, it can be quite challenging to weigh the human and economic costs and benefits and determine a clear recommendation. For instance, in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Michael Barry (2009) indicates that â€œserial PSA [prostate-specificâ€“antigen] screening has at best a modest effect on prostate-cancer mortality during the first decade of follow-up. This benefit comes at the cost of substantial over-diagnosis and overtreatment. It is important to remember that the key question is not whether PSA screening is effective but whether it does more good than harm.â€
This weekâ€™s Learning Resources include articles about screening programs for four different diseases that contain potentially controversial recommendations. For this Discussion, you will select a disease and examine the epidemiological evidence to assess a recommendation for screening guidelines. In addition, you will consider possibilities for furthering policy to promote population health related to this disease.
Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
- Summarize the recommendations of your selected article. Discuss ethical considerations and whether or not you believe the recommendations are justified.
- Describe the epidemiological evidence in support of your position.
- Identify whether the screening program you review is population-based or high-risk based and how that influences your assessment.
- How can the reported data be used to move policy forward for improving population health around this issue?