Are women getting relevant information about mammography screening for an informed consent: a critical appraisal of information brochures used for screening invitation in Germany, Italy, Spain and France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to find out if information brochures on mammography screening in Germany, Italy, Spain and France contain more information to facilitate informed consent than in similar studies carried out over the last few years in Sweden, Canada, USA and the UK, countries with different medical cultures. METHODS: We generated a list of essential information items on mammography screening for the purpose of informed consent. We mostly used the same items of information as had been used in previous studies and analysed the information brochures of major national initiatives in Germany and France, and three brochures each from regionalized programmes in Italy and Spain. We cross-checked which of our items were covered in the brochures and if correct numbers were given. RESULTS: We found that the information brochures contained only about half of the information items we defined. Six of the eight brochures mentioned the reduction in breast-cancer fatalities. Four of the eight provided information on false positives, and four of the brochures highlighted the side-effects of radiation. The information on side-effects and risks provided by the brochures was generally of poor quality, and none of them referred to over diagnosis. When numbers were given, they were only indicated in terms of relative numbers. CONCLUSION: The information brochures currently being used in Germany, Italy, Spain and France are no better than the brochures analysed some years ago. Our results suggest that the providers of mammography screening programmes continue to conceal information from women that is essential when making an informed decision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.226 | 0.480 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".