Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Navigating the uncertainties of screening: the contribution of social theory

  • Special Issue Article
  • Published:
Social Theory & Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Screening programmes are social interventions as much as they are medical, and as such they benefit from scrutiny informed by social theory. Screening gives rise to a range of uncertainties and the debates and controversies that result are rarely confined to policy makers and health professionals. Contestations about the science underlying screening are common, and frequently enter the public sphere, engaging with wider societal themes and normative questions. The uncertainties of screening and the need to balance potential benefits against possible harms are often underestimated and underrepresented within these. In this paper, I consider the contribution of social theory to navigating the uncertainties of screening. In doing so, I focus in particular on two relatively recent developments: first, the marked shift, at least in policy terms, towards screening based on an individual’s informed consent, having weighed up the possible harms and benefits; and second, the emerging focus on overdiagnosis and overtreatment. I highlight some important ways in which social theory can add value by helping us gain analytical purchase on these issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong, D. 1983. Political anatomy of the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D. 1993. Public health spaces and the fabrication of identity. Sociology 27 (3): 393–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D. 1995. The rise of surveillance medicine. Sociology of Health & Illness 17 (3): 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, N. 2005. Resistance through risk: Women and cervical cancer screening. Health, Risk and Society 7 (2): 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, N. 2007. Discourse and the individual in cervical cancer screening. Health 11 (1): 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, N., and H. Eborall. 2012a. The sociology of medical screening: Critical perspectives, new directions. Chichster: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, N., and H. Eborall. 2012b. The sociology of medical screening: Past, present and future. Sociology of Health & Illness 34 (2): 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, N., and P. Hilton. 2014. Doing diagnosis: Whether and how clinicians use a diagnostic tool of uncertain clinical utility. Social Science and Medicine 120: 208–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, N., V. James, and M. Dixon-Woods. 2012. The role of primary care professionals in women’s experiences of cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study. Family Practice 29 (4): 462–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, N., and E. Murphy. 2008. Weaving meaning? An exploration of the interplay between lay and professional understandings of cervical cancer risk. Social Science and Medicine 67 (7): 1074–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, N., and E. Murphy. 2012. Conceptualizing resistance. Health 16 (3): 314–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, M. 2013. Harms from breast cancer screening outweigh benefits if death caused by treatment is included. BMJ 346 (7892): f385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomberg, K., A. Forss, B.M. Ternestedt, and C. Tishelman. 2009. From ‘silent’ to ‘heard’: Professional mediation, manipulation and women’s experiences of their body after an abnormal Pap smear. Social Science and Medicine 68 (3): 479–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMJ. 2017. http://www.bmj.com/too-much-medicine. Accessed 29 Apr 2017.

  • Braun, V., and N. Gavey. 1999. ‘With the best of reasons’: Cervical cancer prevention policy and the suppression of sexual risk factor information. Social Science and Medicine 48: 1463–1474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows, R., S. Nettleton, and R. Bunton. 1995. Sociology and health promotion: Health, risk and consumption under late modernism. In The sociology of health promotion: Critical analyses of consumption, lifestyle and risk, ed. R. Bunton, S. Nettleton, and R. Burrows, 1–9. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, J. 2000. “It’s just part of being a woman”: Cervical screening, the body and femininity. Social Science and Medicine 50 (3): 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, S. 2017. Overdiagnosis, ethics and trolley problems: Why factors other than outcomes matter. British Medical Journal 358: 3872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castel, R. 1991. From dangerousness to risk. In The foucault effect, ed. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, 281–298. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, A., S. Ziebland, P. Hewitson, and A. McPherson. 2008. What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): A qualitative study. Social Science and Medicine 66 (12): 2425–2435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J.Y., H. Eborall, and N. Armstrong. 2014. Stakeholders’ positions in the breast screening debate, and media coverage of the debate: A qualitative study. Critical Public Health 24 (1): 62–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choosing Wisely UK. 2017. http://www.choosingwisely.co.uk/. Accessed 29 Apr 2017.

  • Cochrane, A.L., and W.W. Holland. 1971. Validation of screening procedures. British Medical Bulletin 27 (1): 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, P. 1992. Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology 18: 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, P. 2005. The shifting engines of medicalization. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 46 (1): 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, P. 2007. The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S.M., and W. McKellin. 1999. ‘There’s this thing in our family’: Predictive testing and the construction of risk for Huntington disease. Sociology of Health & Illness 21 (5): 622–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, C., S. Macintyre, and G.D. Smith. 1994. The potential social impact of predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to common chronic diseases: A review and proposed research agenda. Sociology of Health & Illness 16 (3): 340–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forss, A., C. Tishelman, C. Widmark, and L. Sachs. 2004. Women’s experiences of cervical cellular changes: An unintentional transition from health to liminality? Sociology of Health & Illness 26 (3): 306–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, N.K., G.M. Thomas, R. Thwaites, S. Greenfield, and P. Brown. 2016. Towards a sociology of risk work: A narrative review and synthesis. Sociology Compass 10 (11): 1046–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, C. 2012. The experience of risk as ‘measured vulnerability’: Health screening and lay uses of numerical risk. Sociology of Health & Illness 34 (2): 194–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, C. 2015. The risk experience: The social effects of health screening and the emergence of a proto-illness. Sociology of Health & Illness 37 (7): 973–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godlee, F. 2016. Start stopping smartly. BMJ 353: i3209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gøtzsche, P.C., and K.J. Jørgensen. 2011. The breast screening programme and misinforming the public. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 104 (9): 361–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gøtzsche, P.C., and M. Nielsen. 2011. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. 2004. The new public health. In Key concepts in medical sociology, ed. J. Gabe, M. Bury, and M.A. Elston, 233–237. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, E.E., D. Thompson, and F. Griffiths. 2002. Narratives of risk: Women at midlife, medical ‘experts’ and health technologies. Health, Risk and Society 4 (3): 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, F., E. Green, and G. Bendelow. 2006. Health professionals, their medical interventions and uncertainty: A study focusing on women at midlife. Social Science and Medicine 62 (5): 1078–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grob, R. 2008. Is my sick child healthy? Is my healthy child sick?: Changing parental experiences of cystic fibrosis in the age of expanded newborn screening. Social Science and Medicine 67 (7): 1056–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummersbach, E., G. Piccoliori, C. Oriol Zerbe, A. Altiner, C. Othman, C. Rose, and H.H. Abholz. 2010. 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. European Journal of Public Health 20 (4): 409–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallowell, N. 1999. Doing the right thing: Genetic risk and responsibility. Sociology of Health & Illness 21 (5): 597–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallowell, N., A. Arden-Jones, R. Eeles, C. Foster, A. Lucassen, C. Moynihan, and M. Watson. 2006. Guilt, blame and responsibility: Men’s understanding of their role in the transmission of BRCA1/2 mutations within their family. Sociology of Health & Illness 28 (7): 969–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, I. 2014. Role of fear in overdiagnosis and overtreatment-an essay by Iona Heath. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hersch, J., A. Barratt, J. Jansen, L. Irwig, K. McGeechan, G. Jacklyn, H. Thornton, H. Dhillon, N. Houssami, and K. McCaffery. 2015. Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 385 (9978): 1642–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hersch, J., J. Jansen, and K. McCaffery. 2016. Informed and shared decision making in breast screening. In Breast cancer screening: An examination of scientific evidence, ed. N. Houssami, and D. Miglioretti, 403–420. London: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, B., G. Hundt, J. Sandall, K. Spencer, C. Williams, R. Grellier, and L. Pitson. 2006. On being at higher risk: A qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies. Social Science and Medicine 62 (10): 2360–2372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, L.K. 2015. Reframing overuse in health care: Time to focus on the harms. Journal of Oncology Practice 11 (3): 168–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. 2011. The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howson, A. 1998. Embodied obligation: The female body and health surveillance. In The body in everyday life, ed. S. Nettleton, and J. Watson, 218–240. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howson, A. 1999. Cervical screening, compliance and moral obligation. Sociology of Health & Illness 21 (4): 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J., V. Naganathan, S.M. Carter, A.J. McLachlan, B. Nickel, L. Irwig, C. Bonner, J. Doust, J. Colvin, A. Heaney, R. Turner, and K. McCaffery. 2016. Too much medicine in older people? Deprescribing through shared decision making. BMJ 353: i2893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, M., K.J. Jørgensen, L. Getz, and R. Moynihan. 2016. “Informed choice” in a time of too much medicine-no panacea for ethical difficulties. BMJ 353: i2230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jutel, A. 2009. Sociology of diagnosis: A preliminary review. Sociology of Health & Illness 31 (2): 278–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jutel, A. 2015. Beyond the sociology of diagnosis. Sociology Compass 9 (9): 841–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jutel, A., and S. Nettleton. 2011. Towards a sociology of diagnosis: Reflections and opportunities. Social Science and Medicine 73 (6): 793–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, A.M., and D.H. Broom. 1998. Embodied risk: My body, myself? Social Science and Medicine 46 (3): 437–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotto, R., N. Armstrong, and L.K. Smith. 2016. Care provision during termination of pregnancy following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly—A qualitative study of what is important to parents. Midwifery 43: 14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. 1995. The imperative of health. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markens, S., C.H. Browner, and H. Mabel Preloran. 2010. Interrogating the dynamics between power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision making. Sociology of Health & Illness 32 (1): 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmot, M., D.G. Altman, D.A. Cameron, J.A. Dewar, S.G. Thompson, and M. Wilcox. 2012. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: An independent review. The Lancet 380 (9855): 1778–1786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCartney, M. 2014. Have we given guidelines too much power? BMJ 349: g6027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKie, L. 1995. The art of surveillance or reasonable prevention? The case of cervical screening. Sociology of Health & Illness 17 (4): 441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, R. 2011. Is your mum on drugs? BMJ 343: d5184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, R., J. Doust, and D. Henry. 2012. Preventing overdiagnosis: How to stop harming the healthy. BMJ 344 (7859): e3502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, R., D. Henry, and K.G.M. Moons. 2014. Using evidence to combat overdiagnosis and overtreatment: Evaluating treatments, tests, and disease definitions in the time of too much. PLoS Medicine 11 (7): e1001655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettleton, S. 1995. The sociology of health and illness. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettleton, S., and R. Bunton. 1995. Sociological critiques of health promotion. In The sociology of health promotion, ed. R. Bunton, R. Burrows, and S. Nettleton, 41–58. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHS Choices. 2017. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Screening/Pages/screening.aspx. Accessed 21 Apr 2017.

  • Petersen, A., and D. Lupton. 1996. The new public health: health and self in the age of risk. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, N. 2004. Screening for breast cancer: Candidacy and compliance. Social Science and Medicine 58 (1): 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilnick, A. 2008. ‘It’s something for you both to think about’: Choice and decision making in nuchal translucency screening for Down’s syndrome. Sociology of Health & Illness 30 (4): 511–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilnick, A., and R. Dingwall. 2011. On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review. Social Science and Medicine 72 (8): 1374–1382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilnick, A., and O. Zayts. 2012. ‘Let’s have it tested first’: Choice and circumstances in decision-making following positive antenatal screening in Hong Kong. Sociology of Health & Illness 34 (2): 266–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilnick, A., and O. Zayts. 2014. “it’s just a likelihood”: Uncertainty as topic and resource in conveying “positive” results in an antenatal screening clinic. Symbolic Interaction 37 (2): 187–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polzer, J., S.L. Mercer, and V. Goel. 2002. Blood is thicker than water: genetic testing as citizenship through familial obligation and the management of risk. Critical Public Health 12 (2): 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffle, A.E. 2001. Information about screening—is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expectations 4 (2): 92–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raspberry, K., and D. Skinner. 2011. Enacting genetic responsibility: Experiences of mothers who carry the fragile X gene. Sociology of Health & Illness 33 (3): 420–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, K. 2009. ‘It’s them faulty genes again’: Women, men and the gendered nature of genetic responsibility in prenatal blood screening. Sociology of Health & Illness 31 (3): 343–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roland, M. 2016. Should doctors be able to exclude patients from pay-for-performance schemes? BMJ Quality and Safety 25 (9): 653–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, E. 2007. On doing ‘being ordinary’: Women’s accounts of BRCA testing and maternal responsibility. New Genetics and Society 26 (3): 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwennesen, N., and L. Koch. 2012. Representing and intervening: ‘Doing’ good care in first trimester prenatal knowledge production and decision-making. Sociology of Health & Illness 34 (2): 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, D.L. 1996. Languages of risk: Genetic encryptions of the female body. Women: A Cultural Review 7: 259–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, N., C. Mills, and K. McLeod. 2017. “Simply providing information”: Negotiating the ethical dilemmas of obstetric ultrasound, prenatal testing and selective termination of pregnancy. Feminism and Psychology 27 (1): 72–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G.M. 2014. Prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: Parent and healthcare practitioner experiences. Sociology Compass 8 (6): 837–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, H. 2010. Communicating to citizens the benefits, harms and risks of preventive interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 64 (2): 101–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, H. 2012. Re: Breast screening is beneficial, panel concludes, but women need to know about harms (rapid response). British Medical Journal 345: e7330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, S., and M. Buchbinder. 2012. Expanded newborn screening: Articulating the ontology of diseases with bridging work in the clinic. Sociology of Health & Illness 34 (2): 208–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todorova, I.L.G., A. Baban, D. Balabanova, Y. Panayotova, and J. Bradley. 2006. Providers’ constructions of the role of women in cervical cancer screening in Bulgaria and Romania. Social Science and Medicine 63 (3): 776–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK National Screening Committee. 2017a. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/uk-national-screening-committee-uk-nsc. Accessed 21 Apr 2017.

  • UK National Screening Committee. 2017b. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-population-screening-explained. Accessed 21 Apr 2017.

  • Vassy, C., S. Rosman, and B. Rousseau. 2014. From policy making to service use. Down’s syndrome antenatal screening in England, France and the Netherlands. Social Science and Medicine 106: 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, P.R., C. Coffey, and S. Meyer. 2015. Trust, choice and obligation: A qualitative study of enablers of colorectal cancer screening in South Australia. Sociology of Health & Illness 37 (7): 988–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegwarth, O., L.M. Schwartz, S. Woloshin, W. Gaissmaier, and G. Gigerenzer. 2012. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine 156 (5): 340–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C., J. Sandall, G. Lewando-Hundt, B. Heyman, K. Spencer, and R. Grellier. 2005. Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening. Social Science and Medicine 61 (9): 1983–1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zapka, J.G., B.M. Geller, J.L. Bulliard, J. Fracheboud, H. Sancho-Garnier, and R. Ballard-Barbash. 2006. Print information to inform decisions about mammography screening participation in 16 countries with population-based programs. Patient Education and Counseling 63 (1–2): 126–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Natalie Armstrong is supported by a Health Foundation Improvement Science Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, George Davies Centre, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK

    Natalie Armstrong

Authors
  1. Natalie Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie Armstrong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Armstrong, N. Navigating the uncertainties of screening: the contribution of social theory. Soc Theory Health 17, 158–171 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-018-0067-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-018-0067-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation