A reading list for media doctors who would like to know more about screening.


How to Read a Paper by Trisha Greenhalgh Much is in the BMJ, if you already subscribe.

Screening; evidence and practice. Muir Gray and Angela Raffle.

Testing Treatments, also from Pinter and Martin, and available freely online here.

Overdiagnosed, by Welch, Schwartz and Woloshin.

Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

The Tyranny of Health, Michael Fitzpatrick.

Reckoning with Risk, Gerd Gigerenzer.

Matters of Life and Death, Iona Heath.

The Lancet series on treating individuals.

Should I be tested for cancer? Maybe not and here’s why. Gilbert Welch.

Also two things from Sense about Science – making sense of testing and making sense of screening , both free, both which I helped with

There’s my book, natch (which is cheaper from the publisher)  – The Patient Paradox.

I also suggest going to a course on evidence based practice via the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine in Oxford. I did a couple of years ago and it was excellent.

Then there is EvidenceLive 2013, where all kinds of evidence based people will be talking (including me).

And where I am willing to buy any famous media doctors a drink if they want to come and listen.






3 Responses to “A reading list for media doctors who would like to know more about screening.”

  1. Martyn Lobley May 31, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    I presented the launch of Sense About Screening. Does that make me a Famous Media Doc and do I get a free drink 😉

  2. Margaret McCartney
    margaretmccartney May 31, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    cocktails on me.

  3. Chris Hiley June 8, 2012 at 9:53 am #

    Hello. Excellent list. Please extend the circulation! Screening is not just a news hook for the media. It it very popular elsewhere. Your list should also be required reading by the Heads/Directors of Campaigns, Policy, PR, Public Affairs, Media and Marketing at all health charities, with a particularly hard stare in the direction of cancer charities as it’s thrust it into their hot stickies.

    I bet the health professionals at work within the same organisations all claim some kind of evidence base for the activties that bring them into contact with members of the public – like running cancer helplines or giving talks to groups. It’s a pity that balanced evidence based information and understanding it does not necessarily extend to other departments. Few – possibly none (I’m not comfortable with the absolute) charity PR & marketing types seem to engage with the total evidence base on screening, wittering on about benefits (when they may not be all they are cracked up to be in any case) and ignoring/totally unaware of risk. This is because screening is the Call to Action all charities need as the cherry on the top of their PR messaging. Thus it is easily subverted.

    Screening fits the brief for looking like ‘awareness’ and awareness looks like public health. The concept of awareness has, though, widened over time. Screening and its nuances could be stuck firmly in health promotion departments but the PR teams have made health promotion on screening into something else entirely, without anyone noticing – brand promotion. Screening is the hook for profile raising and brand recognition.

    And thus, income.