Grant: Travel Awards - Institute Community Support

Screening is routine in neonates and adults, and emerging in early childhood. Population screening holds promise as secondary prevention but is not without harm. Responding to recent policy developments and growing public enthusiasm, we assess attitudes regarding the responsible use of screening tests across diverse contexts, and factors influencing them. As part of a multi-phase mixed-methods public engagement study, this survey asked participants to rate how irresponsible one would be to refuse screening for particular newborn, early childhood, and adult onset conditions (i.e. phenylketonuria; Duchenne muscular dystrophy; general development; autism; colon and breast cancer). Qualitative findings from earlier phases of this study suggest considerable enthusiasm for population screening in newborns. Data collection will be completed in early 2012, thus results are pending. However, we will explore whether particular factors (e.g. disease type, treatment effectiveness, age screened) impact attitudes and values about the obligation to use available preventive technologies. We expect that refusal to screen will be seen as irresponsible regardless of condition and screening context. We are particularly interested in examining whether and how informational benefits and the promise of secondary prevention may result in disvaluing of harms. Additionally, we will explore whether those who view screening as an obligation are more likely to positively value the expansive benefits of screening. Public expectations are driven by a complex set of value-based judgments, perceived benefits and harms, and hopes about what prevention-oriented interventions might make possible. It is unknown whether public enthusiasm for population screening is more or less intensified in particular contexts (i.e. child health), and accordingly warrants exploration.