Understanding of the knowledge gathered in a course
Reply 1
Hello Kalkat,
Thank you for posting an educational post about your understanding of the knowledge gathered in this course. Your post has several strengths that convey your knowledge on mammogram screening for breast cancer prevention and treatment. First, the accurate description of the study’s intention allows the audience to understand what your discussion is about (USPSTF, 2016). Secondly, the discussion on the ethical concerns highlighted in the article reveals the shortcomings of the study. Through critical analysis, your post has revealed significant information concerning the importance of the existing guidelines for breast cancer screening. This information has helped broaden my understanding of early breast cancer screening for prevention and treatment (Samson, 2019). Generally, I can say that your post has discussed all the relevant information required and, through a critical review of the article, has outlined the need for mammogram screening for women. Allow me to ask, what can be done to reduce the case of false-positive tests in younger women?
References
Evidence Summary: Screening for Breast Cancer: United States Preventive Services Taskforce. (2016). Retrieved 13 July 2016, from https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/evidence-summary-screening-for-breast-cancer/breast-cancer-screening
Samson, K. (2019). Society Issues First Risk-Mammogram Guidelines. Oncology Times, 41(12), 19. doi:10.1097/01.cot.0000569288.04
8310 WK 8
Reply 2
Hello Thacker,
Thank you for posting an educational post about your understanding of the knowledge gathered in this course. Identifying the needs of the audience is crucial in making them understand the purpose of the article. To enhance further understanding of the article to your audience, you may consider providing the audience with additional information about the purpose of the article. You may discuss the factors that led to the changes in recommendations for cervical cancer screening (Creighton et al., 2010). Overall, your post has highlighted the ethical concerns that arise due to the new recommendations given through critical analysis. This allows the audience to fully understand the health risks that come with the new proposals for screening. Through this discussion, my understanding of the dangers of late cervical cancer screening on younger women has been enhanced. I’m now able to agree with your recommendation for different screening intervals for women based on the high-risk factor (Pelkofski et al., 2016). I am curious, with the screening intervals in place, what is the efficiency of reducing cases?
References
Creighton, p., Lew, J. B., Clements, M., Smith, M., Howard, K., Dyer, S., Lord, S., & Canfell, K. (2010). Cervical cancer screening in Australia: Modelled evaluation of the impact of changing the recommended interval from two to three years. BMC Public Health, 10, 734-747.
Pelkofski, E., Stine, J., Wages, N. A., Gehrig, P. A., Kim, K. H., & Cantrell, L. A. (2016). Cervical Cancer in Women Aged 35 Years and Younger. Clinical Therapeutics, 38(3), 459–466. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.01.024