Good health checks according to the general public; expectations and criteria: a focus group study

BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):64 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Health checks or health screenings identify disease in people without a specific medical indication. So far, the perspective of health check users has remained underexposed in discussions about the ethics and regulation of health checks. In 2017, we conducted a qualitative study with lay people from the Netherlands. We asked what participants consider characteristics of good and bad health checks, and whether they saw a role for the Dutch government. Participants consider a good predictive value the most important characteristic of a good health check. Information before, during and after the test, knowledgeable and reliable providers, tests for treatable disease, respect for privacy, no unnecessary health risks and accessibility are also mentioned as criteria for good health checks. Participants make many assumptions about health check offers. They assume health checks provide certainty about the presence or absence of disease, that health checks offer opportunities for health benefits and that the privacy of health check data is guaranteed. In their choice for provider and test they tend to rely more on heuristics than information. Participants trust physicians to put the interest of potential health check users first and expect the Dutch government to intervene if providers other than physicians failed to do so by offering tests with a low predictive value, or tests that may harm people, or by infringing the privacy of users. Assumptions of participants are not always justified, but they may influence the choice to participate. This is problematic because choices for checks with a low predictive value that do not provide health benefits may create uncertainty and may cause harm to health; an outcome diametrically opposite to the one intended. Also, this may impair the relationship of trust with physicians and the Dutch government. To further and protect autonomous choice and to maintain trust, we recommend the following measures to timely adjust false expectations: advertisements that give an accurate impression of health check offers, and the installation of a quality mark.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 86,377

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Public Health and Normative Public Goods.Richard H. Dees - 2018 - Public Health Ethics 11 (1):20-26.
Health care as a public good.Milton Fisk - 1996 - Journal of Social Philosophy 27 (3):14-40.
Rationing and the Clinton health plan.Richard D. Lamm - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (5):445-454.
Cycle helmets--when is legislation justified?Nigel Unwin - 1996 - Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (1):41-45.
Paternalism and Populations.Tom Walker - 2016 - Public Health Ethics 9 (1):46-54.
Global Health and the Demands of the Day.Meg Stalcup & Stéphane Verguet - 2011 - Health, Culture and Society 1 (1):28-44.


Added to PP

12 (#892,191)

6 months
4 (#244,383)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Principles of biomedical ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by James F. Childress.
Trust and antitrust.Annette Baier - 1986 - Ethics 96 (2):231-260.
Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics.Onora O'Neill - 2002 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rethinking informed consent in bioethics.Neil C. Manson - 2007 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Onora O'Neill.

View all 11 references / Add more references