LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Heyman, Bob (2010)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: RA0421, H1, R1
Health screening promises to reduce risks to individuals via probabilistic sifting of populations for medical conditions. The categorisation and selection of 'conditions' such as cardiovascular events, dementia and depression for screening itself requires prior interpretive labour which usually remains unexamined. Screening systems can take diverse organisational forms and varying relationships to health status, as when purported disease precursors, for example 'pre-cancerous' polyps, or supposed risk factors, such as high cholesterol themselves, become targets for screening. Screening at best yields small, although not necessarily unworthwhile, net population health gains. It also creates new risks, leaving some individuals worse-off than if they had been left alone. The difficulties associated with attempting to measure small net gains through randomised controlled trials are sometimes underestimated. Despite endemic doubts about its clinical utility, bibliometric analysis of published papers shows that responses to health risks are coming to be increasingly thought about in terms of screening. This shift is superimposed on a strengthening tendency to view health through the lens of risk. It merits further scrutiny as a societal phenomenon.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Carr-Hill R.A. (1989) Assumptions of the QALY Procedure. Social Science & Medicine, 29, pp. 469-477.
    • Castel R. (1991) From dangerousness to risk. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (Eds.) The Foucault Effect. (London, Harvester Wheatsheaf).
    • Chiu R.W.K., Cantor C.R. and Lo D.W.M. (2009) Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis by single molecule counting technologies. Trends in Genetics, 25, pp. 324-331.
    • Dragan I., O'Connor D. , Green S., and Wilt T. ( 2007 ) Screening for prostate cancer: A Cochrane systematic review. Cancer Causes and Control, 18, pp. 279- 285.
    • G√łtzsche P.C and Nielsen M. (2006) Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001877. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub2.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok