Contested guideline development in Australia’s cervical screening program

values drive different views of the purpose and implementation of organised screening

Jane Williams, Stacy Carter, Lucie Rychetnik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article draws on an empirical investigation of how Australia’s cervical screening program came to be the way it is. The study was carried out using grounded theory methodology and primarily uses interviews with experts involved in establishing, updating or administering the program. We found strong differences in experts’ normative evaluations of the program and beliefs about optimal ways of achieving the same basic outcome: a reduction in morbidity and mortality caused by invasive cervical cancer. Our analysis demonstrates how variations in values and preferences associated with key concepts underpinning public health such as benefit, harm and burden led to different perspectives on the purpose of an organized cervical screening program. These variations were largely driven by different bases of professional experience. Differently conceived purposes in turn led to conflict over how the program should be operationalized. Following Frith’s model of empirical
bioethics, the results of the study both draw on and inform the existing public health and screening ethics literature.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)5-18
Number of pages14
JournalPublic Health Ethics
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Contested guideline development in Australia’s cervical screening program: values drive different views of the purpose and implementation of organised screening'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this