From facts to arguments: A study of the 2014 Swiss controversy over systematic mammography screening.

Abstract

The Swiss Medical Board (SMB) has recently revived the controversy over mammography screening by recommending to stop the introduction of new systematic mammography screening programs. This study aimed to examine the Swiss media coverage of the release of the SMB report. The dataset consisted of 25 newspaper and "medical magazine" articles, and TV/radio interviews. The analytic approach was based on argumentation theory. Authority and community arguments were the most frequent types of arguments. With respect to authority arguments, stakeholders for instance challenged or supported the expertise of the SMB by referring to the competence of external figures of authority. Community arguments were based on common values such as life (saved thanks to systematic mammography screening) and money (costs associated with unnecessary care induced by systematic mammography screening). The efficiency of mammography screening which was the key issue of the debate appeared to be largely eluded, and the question of what women should do endures. While interpersonal and interprofessional communication has become a major topic of interest in the medical community, it appears that media communication on mammography screening is still rather ineffective. We call in particular for a more fact-based discussion.