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
. 2020 Aug 17:5:158.
doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16057.2. eCollection 2020.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Affiliations

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Steve Sturdy et al. Wellcome Open Res. .

Abstract

Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Keywords: governance; screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author). The following interests were declared: SH and OL reported grants from the European Research Council; KH and FM reported grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; MK reported being the director responsible for national screening program in Denmark in the Danish Health Authority and chairperson of the advisory committee on national screening programmes to the Danish Health Authority; JM reported being a paid employee of the UK National Screening Committee; AR reported personal fees from UK National Screening Programmes; SS reported a grant from the Wellcome Trust.

References

    1. Wilson JMG, Jungner G: Principles and practice of screening for disease.Geneva: World Health Organisation;1968. Reference Source
    1. Reiser SJ: The emergence of the concept of screening for disease. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1978;56(4):403–25. - PubMed
    1. Gray JAM: New concepts in screening. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(501):292–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Harris RP, Sheridan SL, Lewis CL, et al. : The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(2):281–5. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12745 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carter SM: Ethical aspects of cancer screening. Cancer Forum. 2016;40(2):105–9. Reference Source

LinkOut - more resources