Minerva
BMJ 2007; 335 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39267.646366.80 (Published 12 July 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;335:104
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Minerva reports on a study [1] which sought to explore whether the
English Breast Screening Programme`s leaflet
http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/ia-02.html
improved women`s knowledge of breast cancer screening. The study found
that “some simple messages in the leaflet had not been understood by all
women.”
Another recent study from the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of
Oxford, [2] found that over 50% of the 1,496 women in their survey wrongly
believe that the risk does not vary with age. They found that only 1%
gave a correct response – identifying that the oldest women are at the
greatest risk of breast cancer. In other words, 99 women out of a hundred
answered incorrectly. Yet information about this is available on the NHS
Breast Screening Programme (NHS BSP) website
http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/breastcancer.html
An analysis of the content of invitations for publicly funded
screening mammography [3] found generally poor quality and unbalanced
presentation of benefits and harms, 97% mentioning the main benefit, but
with no invitation mentioning the major harm of screening: over-diagnosis.
There is little purpose in undertaking surveys to see if women`s
knowledge of breast cancer screening is improved by a new leaflet if the
leaflet itself is unbalanced and inadequate. As has been repeatedly said,
resources would be better deployed in providing women with better
information [4] and making decision aids available to them.[5]
[1] Webster P, Austoker J. Does the English Breast Screening
Programme`s information leaflet improve women`s knowledge about
mammography screening? A before and after questionnaire survey. Journal of
Public Health 2007; 29:2:173-177
[2] Moser K, Patnick J, Beral V. Do women know that the risk of
breast cancer increases with age? Br J General Practice 2007; 57: 404-406
[3] Jorgensen KJ, Goetzsche P. Content of invitations for publicly
funded screening mammography BMJ 2006;332:538-541
[4] Thornton H, Edwards A, Baum M. Women need better information
about routine mammography. BMJ 2003;327:101-3
[5] Barratt A, Trevena L, Davey HM, McCaffrey K. Use of decision aids
to support informed choice about screening. BMJ 2004; 329:507-510
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Leaflets not only "miss the point" but have missing content
Dear Sir/Madam,
Information giving to patients is of course a good idea but can be
problematic to say the least. In my experience such leaflets or
Information Sheets need to carefully devised and written for patients
particularly to non-English speaking patients or those with limited
command of English. I would suggest through my expereince leaflets should
be written with patients on board rather than excluding patients.
Dr Ikhlaq Din
e-mail: ikhlaqdin@hotmail.co.uk
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests