Disease Screenings

Sample Answer

I have participated in disease screenings as a practice student, and their coverage has been elaborate. During these screenings, there have been notable insights on the acceptance by the target populations and the factors influencing the varied attitudes about the exercise.

I recall a specific screening for hepatitis in which the women targeted were skeptical of the exercise. They could not understand the targeting and considered profiling their characteristics as malicious. Trying to get them to cooperate, share their views, and be comfortable with the pre-screening survey was difficult. The processes were necessary to yield enough data to inform the actual process.

The screening was at a health facility marketed as a dedicated screening day. Therefore, regular visitors to the health facility and the preventive health department would be aware of the ongoing campaign against hepatitis. Posters and public awareness campaigns sensitized the residents to inform everyone else about the health campaign. I encountered unwillingness among patients who spoke a different language and needed translation.

Others were too preoccupied with other agendas and were resignedly reacting to the request. Their reluctant compliance also caused significant delays in getting the members of the target population to complete all the screening steps. These steps included registration and checking in, a medical history questionnaire, informed consent, counseling and education, and blood sample collection.

In retrospect, I would use the following approaches when responding to patients who are apprehensive about screening for certain diseases. One of the cornerstones of my strategy would be empathetic communication. Patients’ trepidations often stem from fear of the unknown or misconceptions. Addressing these fears would offer genuine empathy, recognizing that their concerns were valid (Chien et al., 2020). Creating a safe space for patients to express their concerns is essential for effective healthcare interactions.

Empowering patients with information is vital to alleviating apprehension for them to exercise their right to make informed decisions about their health. I would offer patients comprehensive information about hepatitis, the screening process, and its purpose. This approach ensures autonomy, ensuring patients have all the necessary facts; I encouraged them to participate in decision-making. Apprehension often arises from misconceptions about the disease and the screening procedure.

I would focus on evidence-based approaches to correct misconceptions, offer clarity, dispel any false beliefs, and present the screening in an accurate light (McGowan et al., 2020). The approach aligns with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, as erroneous information could lead to unnecessary distress.

Respecting patients’ autonomy was paramount. While I strongly encouraged patients to undergo hepatitis screenings, I also recognized their right to decline. This approach aligns with respecting patients’ autonomy or guiding them toward a thoughtful decision (McGowan et al., 2020). By respecting their choices, I aimed to establish a collaborative relationship based on mutual trust and understanding.

Ultimately, I would also engage patients in discussions about the potential benefits of early detection and treatment of hepatitis. Simultaneously acknowledging the limitations of the screening test and conveying the possibility of false positives and negatives is necessary, and I would highlight the importance of balancing potential benefits with the test’s accuracy.

References

• Chien, S. Y., Chuang, M. C., & Chen, I. P. (2020). Why people do not attend health screenings Factors that influence willingness to participate in health screenings for chronic diseases. International Journal of Environmental Research And Public Health, 17(10), 3495.
• McGowan, C. R., Hellman, N., Chowdhury, S., Mannan, A., Newell, K., & Cummings, R. (2020). COVID-19 testing acceptability and uptake amongst the Rohingya and host community in Camp 21, Teknaf, Bangladesh. Conflict and health, pp. 14, 1–5.