Don't politicize based on gut feelings

Don’t politicize based on gut feelings

Last week, my team and I took to the streets to call attention to the bowel cancer screening program. In population screening, colon cancer can be detected early or even prevented with a simple stool test. subordinate 4 percent Of the participants requiring visual examination, one in three was found to have colon cancer or an advanced precursor of colon cancer. Fortunately, most people on the street have told me that they participate in population screening, because early detection means better prognosis.

Roseanne Hertzberger is skeptical about population screening in her column (3/19). Correctly evaluating population screenings is really important, because the benefits of health gains and lower treatment costs also have drawbacks that Hertzberger rightly mentions. The comprehensive assessment of population screening—impact on patients, cost-effectiveness, and impact on healthcare—is a complex science. Renowned academics evaluate Dutch population screenings using complex simulation models, experiments and focus groups.

Hertzberger turns population examination into a political subject, and thus fails science. When evaluating screening procedures, I call on policy makers not to keep pace with this politicization based on gut feelings, but to base themselves on science.

PhD Candidate in Cancer Screening Erasmus MC

See also  Landhuis Oud Amelisweerd will open its doors to visitors again from today

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Don't politicize based on gut feelings

Don’t politicize based on gut feelings

Last week, my team and I took to the streets to call attention to the bowel cancer screening program. In population screening, colon cancer can be detected early or even prevented with a simple stool test. subordinate 4 percent Of the participants requiring visual examination, one in three was found to have colon cancer or an advanced precursor of colon cancer. Fortunately, most people on the street have told me that they participate in population screening, because early detection means better prognosis.

Roseanne Hertzberger is skeptical about population screening in her column (3/19). Correctly evaluating population screenings is really important, because the benefits of health gains and lower treatment costs also have drawbacks that Hertzberger rightly mentions. The comprehensive assessment of population screening—impact on patients, cost-effectiveness, and impact on healthcare—is a complex science. Renowned academics evaluate Dutch population screenings using complex simulation models, experiments and focus groups.

Hertzberger turns population examination into a political subject, and thus fails science. When evaluating screening procedures, I call on policy makers not to keep pace with this politicization based on gut feelings, but to base themselves on science.

PhD Candidate in Cancer Screening Erasmus MC

See also  A solution to the bots problem has been discovered: Unexpected circumstances

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.