Dissection and graded - Assignment Example

Screening Screening Introduction As people are increasingly becoming aware and conscious about their health, they have started to participate more actively in screening programs. In some diseases, early diagnosis helps in the treatment, but in some cases the consequences are extremely harmful (Shickle & Chadwick, 1994). Screening procedures may help in the cure, but in some cases the population is adversely affected. For example: there are multiple cases of breast screening which have not found to prevent the disease or reduce the mortality rate but have profoundly induced depression, anxiety and psychological distress in patients (Harding, 2014).

These factors might prevent people from participating in the screening tests.Various factors are found to be dominantly effecting people’s decision of participating in the screening tests. The two possible reasons include awareness and health beliefs. As screening is a process of identifying risk of diseases in presymptomatic individuals for effective therapy or primary prevention to evaluate the risk factors (Shickle & Chadwick, 1994). Depending upon the concepts and beliefs people decide to take part in screening procedures.

Nowadays people are aware of both things, the pros of screening tests and the cons. Because of increasing adverse effects reported due to screening procedures the awareness has been increased therefore; people do not wish to participate in screening procedures. People are more aware of the adverse consequences like fear, depression, anxiety, etc. which occur due to undertaking screening tests, this hinders in their decision of participating in screening tests.Health beliefs of some individuals influenced by their culture or traditions also prevent people from participation (Government of Western Australia, 2014).

People consider the screening tests to be waste of money as they do not find them useful. As studies have proven screening tests have not found effective in decreasing the risk of diseases therefore, people do not consider them as useful or result oriented. Surveys have proved that most people do not consider themselves to be sick or have any risk of disease which prevents them from taking part in screening tests. People also consider the screening procedures to be unsafe and may result in doing harm to their bodies which makes them fearful.

Having proper awareness and guidance about one self and knowing whether screening is necessary or not prevent individuals from facing series of adverse outcomes. In order to overcome screeningitis the public health professionals should ensure safe practices, avoidance of false positive results and assure confidentiality. Screening should only be prescribed when its potential benefits outweigh the prospective harm. Highly dependable controlled trials should be performed to evaluate the role of screening procedures in reducing mortality and providing accurate diagnosis (Harding, 2014).

Sources of BiasThe potential sources of bias in this study are: The selected group is a representative of limited population.Total number of individuals exposed to benzene could not be located.Individuals with negative results in excessive benzene exposure were not dropped out of the study.In order to address the potential sources of bias, the researchers should perform the study of relatively large population and in multiple locations so that the data can be compared. Any false positive and false negative results should be dropped out to maintain the authenticity of the research outcomes.

Calculations: (The Pennsylvania State University, 2014)ATrue Positive: 214B False Positive: 90C False Negative: 29D True Negative: 14991. Sensitivity: A/(A+C) X 100 = 214/ (214+29) x 100 = 88.06%2. Specificity: D/ (D+B) X100 = 1499/ (1499+90) x 100 = 94.33%3. Prevalence of excessive benzene exposure: TDisease/ Total x 100 = 487/3294x 100 = 14.78 %4. Positive predictive value: A/(A+B) × 100 = 214/ (214+90) x 100 = 70.39%5. Negative predictive value: D/(D+C) × 100 = 1499/ (1499+29) x 100 = 98.10%6. Accuracy: (A+D)/Total = (214+1499) / 3294 x 100 = 52.

00% ConclusionThe new diagnostic test could not successfully produce results on the basis of which any conclusion could be drawn. The variation in results shows that the screening test was not effective in detecting leukemia with benzene exposure in the selected population. ReferencesGovernment of Western Australia. (2014). Potential barriers preventing womens participation in cervical screening. Retrieved from http://www.health.wa.gov.au/cervical/increasing/potential.cfmHarding, M. (2014). Screening Programmes in the UK.

Retrieved from http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/screening-programmes-in-the-uk#Shickle, D., & Chadwick, R. (1994). The ethics of screening: Is screeningitis an incurable disease? Journal of medical ethics, 20 (1), 12-18.The Pennsylvania State University. (2014). Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value. Retrieved from https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat507/node/71