Public perspectives on ethical issues in lung cancer screening policy design and implementation in Ontario, Canada

M. Pahwa , J. Abelson , L. Schwartz , P.A. Demers , K. Shen , H. Shaikh , M. Vanstone
{"title":"Public perspectives on ethical issues in lung cancer screening policy design and implementation in Ontario, Canada","authors":"M. Pahwa ,&nbsp;J. Abelson ,&nbsp;L. Schwartz ,&nbsp;P.A. Demers ,&nbsp;K. Shen ,&nbsp;H. Shaikh ,&nbsp;M. Vanstone","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Public perspectives on ethical issues in cancer screening may contribute to informing policymaking. Lung cancer screening is being implemented with the aim of reducing lung cancer mortality. Inequitable lung carcinogen exposure and lung cancer disparities are key ethical challenges in screening. This research aimed to examine public perspectives about ethical issues in lung cancer screening.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A qualitative description study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, where a provincial lung cancer screening program is being implemented. Using maximum variation sampling, Ontario residents aged 55–85 years were recruited via family medicine clinics, social media, and personal networks. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individual participants to elicit their perspectives on established ethical issues in cancer screening, with questions focused on potential lung cancer screening benefits and harms, who should be eligible, and why.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Twenty-six individuals participated in this study. Participants were aged 61−70 years and of various education levels. Sixty-five percent were women. No participants currently smoked commercial tobacco. Participants believed screening was important for reducing lung cancer mortality and saving healthcare costs. Participants stated that screening should consider and prioritize a wider range of lung cancer risk factors, such as occupational exposures and family history of lung cancer, than factors currently being used to offer screening to those at high risk. Participants gave less priority to screening for people who currently smoke.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Public perspectives supported screening high-risk candidates; however, support may be undermined by smoking stigma. Screening policies should more effectively mitigate stigma and ethically justify screening candidacy decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101061"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552525000209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Public perspectives on ethical issues in cancer screening may contribute to informing policymaking. Lung cancer screening is being implemented with the aim of reducing lung cancer mortality. Inequitable lung carcinogen exposure and lung cancer disparities are key ethical challenges in screening. This research aimed to examine public perspectives about ethical issues in lung cancer screening.

Methods

A qualitative description study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, where a provincial lung cancer screening program is being implemented. Using maximum variation sampling, Ontario residents aged 55–85 years were recruited via family medicine clinics, social media, and personal networks. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individual participants to elicit their perspectives on established ethical issues in cancer screening, with questions focused on potential lung cancer screening benefits and harms, who should be eligible, and why.

Findings

Twenty-six individuals participated in this study. Participants were aged 61−70 years and of various education levels. Sixty-five percent were women. No participants currently smoked commercial tobacco. Participants believed screening was important for reducing lung cancer mortality and saving healthcare costs. Participants stated that screening should consider and prioritize a wider range of lung cancer risk factors, such as occupational exposures and family history of lung cancer, than factors currently being used to offer screening to those at high risk. Participants gave less priority to screening for people who currently smoke.

Conclusion

Public perspectives supported screening high-risk candidates; however, support may be undermined by smoking stigma. Screening policies should more effectively mitigate stigma and ethically justify screening candidacy decisions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.
期刊最新文献
Short report: UNESCO's role in bioethics - From the country level to the international conversation in bioethics Health law and bioethics in France Why we must reread Aeschylus? Public policy and asylum law Medical and museum collaboration for iconodiagnosis in dermatology: the example of the Musée de Fécamp BYOD use and perception among hospital clinicians – A qualitative study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1