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
. 2018 Jun 22;19(1):64.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0301-6.

Good health checks according to the general public; expectations and criteria: a focus group study

Affiliations

Good health checks according to the general public; expectations and criteria: a focus group study

Yrrah H Stol et al. BMC Med Ethics. .

Abstract

Background: Health checks or health screenings identify (risk factors for) disease in people without a specific medical indication. So far, the perspective of (potential) health check users has remained underexposed in discussions about the ethics and regulation of health checks.

Methods: In 2017, we conducted a qualitative study with lay people from the Netherlands (four focus groups). We asked what participants consider characteristics of good and bad health checks, and whether they saw a role for the Dutch government.

Results: Participants consider a good predictive value the most important characteristic of a good health check. Information before, during and after the test, knowledgeable and reliable providers, tests for treatable (risk factors for) disease, respect for privacy, no unnecessary health risks and accessibility are also mentioned as criteria for good health checks. Participants make many assumptions about health check offers. They assume health checks provide certainty about the presence or absence of disease, that health checks offer opportunities for health benefits and that the privacy of health check data is guaranteed. In their choice for provider and test they tend to rely more on heuristics than information. Participants trust physicians to put the interest of potential health check users first and expect the Dutch government to intervene if providers other than physicians failed to do so by offering tests with a low predictive value, or tests that may harm people, or by infringing the privacy of users.

Conclusions: Assumptions of participants are not always justified, but they may influence the choice to participate. This is problematic because choices for checks with a low predictive value that do not provide health benefits may create uncertainty and may cause harm to health; an outcome diametrically opposite to the one intended. Also, this may impair the relationship of trust with physicians and the Dutch government. To further and protect autonomous choice and to maintain trust, we recommend the following measures to timely adjust false expectations: advertisements that give an accurate impression of health check offers, and the installation of a quality mark.

Keywords: Criteria; Ethics; Focus groups; Health check; Heuristics; Qualitative research; Screening; Trust.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

In the Netherlands, ethics approval or written informed consent for this type of research is not required according to the Medical Research (Human Subjects) Act (WMO) [43]. Participants were informed orally about the purposes of the study beforehand and enabled to ask questions. They gave their verbal consent to participate and to anonymized publication of findings, which was recorded on tape.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Publisher’s Note

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

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Health council of the Netherlands (HCN) Checking checked: appropriate use of health checks. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 2015.
    1. Juth N, Munthe C. The ethics of screening in health care and medicine. Serving society or serving the patient? International library of ethics, law, and the new medicine. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012.
    1. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics . Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of ‘personalised healthcare’ in a consumer age. Oxfordshire: Nuffield Press; 2010.
    1. Annes JP, Giovanni MA, Murray MF. Risks of Presymptomatic direct-to-consumer genetic testing. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1100–1101. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1006029. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Evans JP, Dale DC, Fomous C. Preparing for a consumer-driven genomic age. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1099–1100. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1006202. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources