Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 29

1.

Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy.

Rychetnik L, Carter SM, Abelson J, Thornton H, Barratt A, Entwistle VA, Mackenzie G, Salkeld G, Glasziou P.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Mar 20;105(6):380-6. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs649. Epub 2013 Feb 1.

2.

The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review.

Street J, Duszynski K, Krawczyk S, Braunack-Mayer A.

Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;109:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005. Epub 2014 Mar 6. Review.

3.

Communicating benefits and risks of screening for prostate, colon, and breast cancer.

Barrett B, McKenna P.

Fam Med. 2011 Apr;43(4):248-53. Review.

4.

Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes.

Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP.

Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jul;57(2):239-51. Review.

PMID:
12765705
7.

[Science and deliberation].

Ravazzi S.

Epidemiol Prev. 2008 Nov-Dec;32(6):319-24. Review. Italian.

8.

Which public and why deliberate?--A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research.

Degeling C, Carter SM, Rychetnik L.

Soc Sci Med. 2015 Apr;131:114-21. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.009. Epub 2015 Mar 6. Review.

PMID:
25770463
9.

From passive subject to active agent: the potential of Citizens' Juries for nursing research.

Iredale R, Longley M.

Nurse Educ Today. 2007 Oct;27(7):788-95. Epub 2006 Dec 8. Review.

PMID:
17157967
10.
11.

American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010.

Wolf AM, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, Thompson IM, D'Amico AV, Volk RJ, Brooks DD, Dash C, Guessous I, Andrews K, DeSantis C, Smith RA; American Cancer Society Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee.

CA Cancer J Clin. 2010 Mar-Apr;60(2):70-98. doi: 10.3322/caac.20066. Epub 2010 Mar 3. Review.

12.

Screening for prostate cancer: the current evidence and guidelines controversy.

Gomella LG, Liu XS, Trabulsi EJ, Kelly WK, Myers R, Showalter T, Dicker A, Wender R.

Can J Urol. 2011 Oct;18(5):5875-83. Review.

13.
14.

Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications.

Chowdhury S, Dent T, Pashayan N, Hall A, Lyratzopoulos G, Hallowell N, Hall P, Pharoah P, Burton H.

Genet Med. 2013 Jun;15(6):423-32. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.167. Epub 2013 Feb 14. Review.

15.

Screening for Cervical, Prostate, and Breast Cancer: Interpreting the Evidence.

Carter SM, Williams J, Parker L, Pickles K, Jacklyn G, Rychetnik L, Barratt A.

Am J Prev Med. 2015 Aug;49(2):274-85. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.009. Epub 2015 Jun 16. Review.

PMID:
26091929
16.

An overview of the role of society and risk in xenotransplantation.

Sobbrio P, Jorqui M.

Xenotransplantation. 2014 Nov-Dec;21(6):523-32. doi: 10.1111/xen.12120. Epub 2014 Jul 8. Review.

PMID:
25040770
17.

Health policy in a new key: setting democratic priorities.

Jennings B.

J Soc Issues. 1993 Summer;49(2):169-84. Review.

PMID:
17167921
18.

The mammography and prostate-specific antigen controversies: implications for patient-physician encounters and public policy.

Brett AS.

J Gen Intern Med. 1995 May;10(5):266-70. Review. No abstract available.

PMID:
7542328
20.

[Examples of screening investigations].

Eickhoff A, Hahn A, Riemann JF.

Internist (Berl). 2008 Jun;49(6):660, 662-4, 666-8, 670-2. doi: 10.1007/s00108-008-2163-3. Review. German.

PMID:
18461294
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk