This website places cookies on your device to help us improve our service to you. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies statement.

Screening: key references and evidence

***Please note: Many of the journal references below require a specific login to access, for example, via Athens, although the abstracts can be viewed without.***

Anderman A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Déry V. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2008;86(4):241-320.

Baratt A. Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: a 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality. British Medical Journal 2015;350:h867.

Crilly MA, Mundie A, Bachoo P, Nimmo F. Influence of rurality, deprivation and distance from clinic on uptake in men invited for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. British Journal of Surgery 2015;102(8):916-923.

Gray JAM. New concepts in screening. British Journal of General Practice 2004;54:292–298.

Gray M, Patnick J, Blanks R. Maximising benefit and minimising harm of screening. British Medical Journal 2008;336:480-483.

Harris R, Sawaya GF, Moyer VA, Calonge N. Reconsidering the Criteria for Evaluating Proposed Screening Programs: Reflections From 4 Current and Former Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Epidemiologic Reviews 2011;33:20–35.

National Institute for Health Research. HTA Project: 09/164/01 Strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC) 2016.

National Institute for Health Research. HS&DR Project: 12/64/112 Incentives in Diabetic Eye Assessment by Screening (IDEAS) Trial (started 2014, to complete January 2017).

Javanparast S, Ward P, Young G, Wilson C, Carter S, Misan G, Cole S, Jiwa M, Tsourtos G, Martini A, Gill T, Baratiny G, Ah Matt M. How equitable are colorectal cancer screening programmes which include FOBTs? A review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Preventative Medicine 2010;50:165-172.

Jepson R, Clegg A, Forbes C, Lewis R, Sowden A, Kleijnen J. Systematic review of the determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake. Health Technology Assessment 2000 Volume: 4 Issue: 14.

Johansson M, Hansson A, Brodersen J. Estimating overdiagnosis in screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: could a change in smoking habits and lowered aortic diameter tip the balance of screening towards harm? British Medical Journal 2015;350:h825.

Moser K, Patnick J, Beral V. Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data. British Medical Journal 2009;338:b2025.

NHS Health Scotland. Attitudes leading to low uptake of cervical screening in Scotland - Final Report. Edinburgh: NHS Health Scotland, 2009.

Porter T. Interventions to reduce inequity and inequality in accessing national screening programmes A report for the UK National Screening Committee. Public Health Resource Unit, 2009.

Prasad V, Lenzer J, Newman DH. Why cancer screening has never been shown to “save lives”—and what we can do about it. British Medical Journal 2016;352:h6080.

Ross NP, Scott NW, Duncan JL. Uptake of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening. A Cohort Study. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2013;45:610-615(free full text).

Scanlon PH, Carter SC, Foy C, Husband RFA, Abbas J, Bachmann MO. Diabetic retinopathy and socioeconomic deprivation in Gloucestershire. Journal of Medical Screening 2008;15:118–121  (free full text).

Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JPA (2015). Does screening for disease save lives in asymptomatic adults? Systematic review of meta-analyses and randomized trials. International Journal of Epidemiology 2015;64-277 (see also three associated commentaries).

Thompson MR, Steel RJC, Atkins WS. Effective screening for bowel cancer: a United Kingdom perspective. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2006;49:895-908.

Van den Bruel A, Jones C, Yang Y, Oke J, Hewitson P, People's willingness to accept overdetection in cancer screening: population survey. British Medical Journal 2015;350:h980 .

von Wagner C, Good A, Wright D, Rachet B, Obichere A, Bloom S and Wardle J. Inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation in the first round of the national screening programme in England. British Journal of Cancer 2009;101:S60-S63 (free full text).

von Wagner C, Good A, Whitaker L and Wardle J. Psychosocial determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation: a conceptual framework. Epidemiological Reviews 2011;33:135-147  (free full text).

Waller J, Robb K, Stubbings S, Ramirez A, Macleod U, Austoker J, Hiom S and Wardle J. Awareness of cancer symptoms and anticipated help seeking among ethnic minority groups in England. British Journal of Cancer 2009;101:S24-S30 (free full text).

Weatherhead SC, Lawrence CM. Melanoma screening clinics: are we detecting more melanomas or reassuring the worried well? British Journal of Dermatology 2006;154:519-541.

Wilson, JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1968.

Zarrouk M, Holst J, Malina M, Lindblad B, Wann-Hansson C, Rosvall M, Gottsäter A. The importance of socioeconomic factors for compliance and outcome at screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in 65-year-old men. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2013;58:50-55.

 

Effectiveness evidence

ScotPHO's purpose is to describe the pattern of health across the Scottish population. As a supplementary service to users, we include the following links to external sources of quality-assured evidence on effectiveness of interventions which may include relevant material for this topic. These links are provided as an aid to users. They are by no means exhaustive nor should they be necessarily viewed as authoritative.

NHS Health Scotland: Scottish briefings on NICE public health guidance

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination

Cochrane Library: Browse by topic

EPPI-Centre: Evidence library

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Evidence services: Evidence search

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidance: Find guidance

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)

Please note: ScotPHO is not responsible for the content or reliability of linked websites and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them. Listing should not be taken as endorsement of any kind. ScotPHO can take no responsibility for information contained on websites maintained by other organisations or for actions taken as a result of information contained on websites maintained by other organisations.

To report a broken link on the ScotPHO website, please email details to the ScotPHO teamThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it of the web page containing the broken link together with the web address you were unable to access.

Page last updated: 29 August 2017

© Scottish Public Health Observatory 2014