Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2017 Aug 9;15(1):150.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0903-8.

Consistency and sources of divergence in recommendations on screening with questionnaires for presently experienced health problems or symptoms: a comparison of recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, UK National Screening Committee, and US Preventive Services Task Force

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Consistency and sources of divergence in recommendations on screening with questionnaires for presently experienced health problems or symptoms: a comparison of recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, UK National Screening Committee, and US Preventive Services Task Force

Brett D Thombs et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: Recently, health screening recommendations have gone beyond screening for early-stage, asymptomatic disease to include "screening" for presently experienced health problems and symptoms using self-report questionnaires. We examined recommendations from three major national guideline organizations to determine the consistency of recommendations, identify sources of divergent recommendations, and determine if guideline organizations have identified any direct randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence for the effectiveness of questionnaire-based screening.

Methods: We reviewed recommendation statements listed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UKNSC), and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) as of 5 September 2016. Eligible recommendations focused on using self-report questionnaires to identify patients with presently experienced health problems or symptoms. Within each recommendation and accompanying evidence review we identified screening RCTs.

Results: We identified 22 separate recommendations on questionnaire-based screening, including three CTFPHC recommendations against screening, eight UKNSC recommendations against screening, four USPSTF recommendations in favor of screening (alcohol misuse, adolescent depression, adult depression, intimate partner violence), and seven USPSTF recommendations that did not recommend for or against screening. In the four cases where the USPSTF recommended screening, either the CTFPHC, the UKNSC, or both recommended against. When recommendations diverged, the USPSTF expressed confidence in benefits based on indirect evidence, evaluated potential harms as minimal, and did not consider cost or resource use. CTFPHC and UKNSC recommendations against screening, on the other hand, focused on the lack of direct evidence of benefit and raised concerns about harms to patients and resource use. Of six RCTs that directly evaluated screening interventions, five did not report any statistically significant primary or secondary health outcomes in favor of screening, and one trial reported equivocal results.

Conclusions: Only the USPSTF has made any recommendations for screening with questionnaires for presently experienced problems or symptoms. The CTFPHC and UKNSC recommended against screening in all of their recommendations. Differences in recommendations appear to reflect differences in willingness to assume benefit from indirect evidence and different approaches to assessing possible harms and resource consumption. There were no examples in any recommendations of RCTs with direct evidence of improved health outcomes.

Keywords: Healthcare guidelines; Preventive healthcare; Screening; Self-report questionnaires.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Dr. Thombs is the Chair-elect of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of guideline and recommendation statements reviewed and included, randomized controlled trials described in the statements, and results of randomized controlled trials that were tests of questionnaire-based screening interventions

References

    1. Raffle A, Gray M. Screening: Evidence and Practice. London: Oxford University Press; 2007.
    1. Wilson JM, Jungner G. Principles and Practices of Screening for Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968.
    1. Black WC, Welch HG. Screening for disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(1):3–11. doi: 10.2214/ajr.168.1.8976910. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Preventive Services Task Force US. Screening for depression: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(10):760–4. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-10-200205210-00012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Guidelines Overview. www.canadiantaskforce.ca/ctfphc-guidelines/overview. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources