Department of Public Health, The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Primary Health Care Research Unit, Region Zealand, Denmark.
PLoS One. 2021 Oct 21;16(10):e0258869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258869. eCollection 2021.
Balancing the benefits and harms of mammography screening is difficult and involves a value judgement. Screening is both a medical and a social intervention, therefore public opinion could be considered when deciding if mammography screening programmes should be implemented and continued. Opinion polls have revealed high levels of public enthusiasm for cancer screening, however, the public tends to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. In the search for better public decision on mammography screening, this study investigated the quality of public opinion arising from a Deliberative Poll. In a Deliberative Poll a representative group of people is brought together to deliberate with each other and with experts based on specific information. Before, during and after the process, the participants' opinions are assessed. In our Deliberative Poll a representative sample of the Danish population aged between 18 and 70 participated. They studied an online video and took part in five hours of intense online deliberation. We used survey data at four timepoints during the study, from recruitment to one month after the poll, to estimate the quality of decisions by the following outcomes: 1) Knowledge; 2) Ability to form opinions; 3) Opinion stability, and 4) Opinion consistency. The proportion of participants with a high level of knowledge increased from 1% at recruitment to 56% after receiving video information. More people formed an opinion regarding the effectiveness of the screening programme (12%), the economy of the programme (27%), and the ethical dilemmas of screening (10%) due to the process of information and deliberation. For 11 out of 14 opinion items, the within-item correlations between the first two inquiry time points were smaller than the correlations between later timepoints. This indicates increased opinion stability. The correlations between three pairs of opinion items deemed theoretically related a priori all increased, indicating increased opinion consistency. Overall, the combined process of online information and deliberation increased opinion quality about mammography screening by increasing knowledge and the ability to form stable and consistent opinions.
对乳腺 X 线筛查的利弊进行权衡非常困难,而且涉及到价值判断。筛查既是一种医学干预,也是一种社会干预,因此在决定是否实施和继续进行乳腺 X 线筛查项目时,可以考虑公众意见。民意调查显示,公众对癌症筛查的热情很高,然而,公众往往高估了筛查的益处,低估了其危害。为了在乳腺 X 线筛查方面做出更好的公众决策,本研究调查了一项协商民意调查中公众意见的质量。在协商民意调查中,会召集一组具有代表性的人,让他们根据特定信息相互协商并与专家进行协商。在这个过程之前、期间和之后,都会对参与者的意见进行评估。在我们的协商民意调查中,丹麦 18 至 70 岁的代表性人群参与了调查。他们研究了一段在线视频,并参加了五个小时的激烈在线讨论。我们在研究过程中的四个时间点使用了调查数据,从招募到民意调查结束后一个月,通过以下结果来评估决策的质量:1)知识;2)形成意见的能力;3)意见稳定性;4)意见一致性。在收到视频信息后,具有高水平知识的参与者比例从招募时的 1%增加到 56%。由于信息和讨论的过程,更多的人对筛查计划的有效性(12%)、计划的经济性(27%)以及筛查的伦理困境(10%)形成了意见。对于 14 个意见项目中的 11 个,前两个查询时间点之间的项目内相关性小于后两个时间点之间的相关性。这表明意见稳定性增加。三个预先认为在理论上相关的意见项目之间的相关性都增加了,表明意见一致性增加。总的来说,在线信息和讨论的综合过程通过增加知识以及形成稳定和一致意见的能力,提高了对乳腺 X 线筛查的意见质量。