Introduction
Cancer screening according to Lawrence and Julie (2013) aims at detecting cancer way before symptoms appear. Klervi et al. (2013) state that screening may involve urine tests, blood tests, among other tests including medical imaging. Notably, benefits of screening on cancer prevention, early cancer detection and subsequent treatment must offset any harm. The concept of practices in Every Woman Matters Program is a unique organizational system. Arguably, screening tests should be effective, well tolerated, and safe with reasonably low rates of false positive and negative results. Ones a signs of cancer are detected, invasive and definitive follow up tests are done to reach a diagnosis. Evidently, screening of cancer can lead to its prevention. Likewise, early diagnosis leads to higher rates of successful cure and extensive life. This essay assesses Every Woman Matters Program and how the issue of women’s preventive health care was approached. It also analyzes possible reasons why the program was ineffective.
Arguably, universal screening or population screening may involve screening everyone within a specific age group or gender, while selective screening may involve individual who are established to have a high risk of developing cancer like people within a family that has a history of cancer. Perceptibly, sometime screening can lead to false positive results especially where an existing cancer is missed. Often controversy arises where it is unclear if the benefits of cancer screening outweigh hazards that result from the screening procedure and any subsequent diagnostic tests and treatments.
Every Woman Matters Program practices are varied considerably in their missions, individual responsibility of staff, and organizational flexibility, resources available for screening practices, leadership, organizational cohesiveness and the ability to work as a team. Many of the practices within the program are overwhelmed with daily operational activities that the workers were resistant to and increased effort required for change.
Notably, the program has antisocial administration behavior that creates that creates anxiety within the system. Correspondingly, a system that has leadership that is capable of containing anxiety, can change it into creativity and thereafter generate greater complexity within its system. The program seems to underutilize its own resources. This is because of increased creativity and focused interventions which help them to successfully promote change within the practice. In keeping with Lawrence and Julie (2013) researchers have tried to calculate the size of difference between lowest and highest risk in women in recent years. They have also tried to determine how this goes down to genetics. Notably genetic component of risk has been noted to be responsible to about a third of the difference between high risks and low risks where lifestyle account for the rest.
In this program, despite the barriers that have been noted to mitigate considerable increase in screening in numerous practices, the concepts of GAPS model is believed to be sound and recommended since it is a practical structure that can be used in initiating desired change in a complex organizational system i.e. a clinical practical setting. Additionally, the importance of other variable used in the program includes cohesiveness, resources, leadership and shared vision.
All these variables are useful in influencing the interactional process of change that barrier in the screening process. There should be every effort to reduce women’s anxiety at every stage of screening. The program should have invitation and recall letters that are cautiously worded and that include contact telephone number for those who have questions. The screening should also help in making informed decisions about whether or not to go for cancer screening. Women should be given leaflets that explain the screening process and the benefits of screening; this should allow the women to make informed decisions about whether to go for the screening process.
Screening methods as elaborated by Linda et al. (2013) do not reveal all types of cancers. A positive screening test, Lisa et al. (2011) argues can also depict false alarm. However, there are great possibility possible precancerous lesions (polyps) for example in individual who have been detected to be having hidden blood in their stool. Such c an easily be removed by colonoscopy instead to prevent development to cancer. Accordingly, screening and health check ups always give a feeling of being well taken care of something g that reduces motivation in taking responsibility of ones health i.e. through unhealthy diet, continued smoking and doing too little exercise. Some of the cancer screening programs include; National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP), Cervical Cancer Screening Program (CCSP), and Kentucky Women's Cancer Screening Program.
Conclusively, there is need to prove the screening program being used is effective i.e. it is effective in detecting cancers more effectively and therefore reduce harms. This must be the first mission of and effective program. Secondly, a good cancer screening program must be cost effective. It would be of no use if the health systems are not in a position to afford it. Thirdly, the program must be universally acceptable to the target group – those who will have their genes analyzed and to policymakers, and health care professionals who have to run the program.
References
Klervi L, Delphine J, Jérôme V, & Emmanuelle S. (2013). Colorectal cancer screening by guaiac faecal occult blood test in France: Evaluation of the programme two years after launching Original Research Article. Cancer Epidemiology, Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages 959-967
Lawrence S & Julie M. (2013) .Nightingale. Establishing the role of CT colonography within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Review Article. Radiography, Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 246-250
Linda M, Annemiek K, Dick R, & Geertruida H. de Bock, Renée Otter, & Pax H. (2013). Attending the breast screening programme after breast cancer treatment: A population-based study Original Research Article. Cancer Epidemiology, Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages 968-972
Lisa L, Scott G, Kathleen T, Michael B, & Erika B. (2011). A 5-day educational program for teaching cervical cancer screening using visual inspection with acetic acid in low-resource settings Original Research Article. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Volume 115, Issue 2, Pages 171-174
