Do health professionals know about overdiagnosis in screening, and how are they dealing with it? A mixed-methods systematic scoping review
- PMID: 39899650
- PMCID: PMC11790174
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315247
Do health professionals know about overdiagnosis in screening, and how are they dealing with it? A mixed-methods systematic scoping review
Abstract
Introduction: Medical screening is a major driver of overdiagnosis, which should be considered when making an informed screening decision. Health professionals (HPs) often initiate screening and are therefore responsible for informing eligible screening participants about the benefits and harms of screening. However, little is known about HPs' knowledge of overdiagnosis and whether they are prepared to inform screening candidates about this risk and enable people to make an informed screening decision.
Methods: This is a systematic review of studies examining HPs' knowledge and perception of overdiagnosis, whether it affects their position on offering screening, and their willingness to inform screening candidates about overdiagnosis. We conducted systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycArticles without language restrictions. Two authors analysed the qualitative and quantitative data separately. Confidence in the findings of the qualitative data was assessed using the GRADE-CERQual approach.
Results: We included 23 publications after screening 9786 records. No studies directly examined HPs' knowledge of overdiagnosis. HPs' perceptions of overdiagnosis varied widely, from considering it a significant harm to seeing it as negligible. This seems linked to their overall beliefs about the benefits and harms of screening and to their position on offering screening, which varies from discouraging to actively promoting it. HPs also hold diverging approaches to informing screening candidates about overdiagnosis, from providing detailed explanations to limited or no information.
Conclusion: There is a lack of research on HPs' knowledge of overdiagnosis, however, HPs who do know about overdiagnosis attribute substantially different levels of harm to it. This seems intertwined with their overall beliefs about the benefits of screening, their position towards offering screening, and their willingness to inform screening candidates about overdiagnosis. This has important implications for the public's right to evidence-based information and compromises an individual's right to make an informed screening decision.
Copyright: © 2025 Piessens et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Do doctors and other healthcare professionals know overdiagnosis in screening and how are they dealing with it? A protocol for a mixed methods systematic review.BMJ Open. 2022 Oct 11;12(10):e054267. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054267. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 36220316 Free PMC article.
-
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
-
Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Syst Rev. 2024 May 28;13(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02539-8. Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38807191 Free PMC article.
-
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
-
Evaluation of how US women react to a decision aid informing them of the harms and benefits of mammography: a qualitative study.BMJ Open. 2025 Mar 18;15(3):e087997. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087997. BMJ Open. 2025. PMID: 40107692 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Johansson E, Steineck G, Holmberg L, Johansson J-E, Nyberg T, Ruutu M, et al.. Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian prostate cancer Group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(9):891–9. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70162-0 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources