Too much of a good thing? Update on fish consumption and mercury exposure

While there is a significant amount of data showing health benefits of increased fish consumption, there are conflicting reports about the cardiovascular risks of mercury in seafood. A recent long-term study attempted to resolve this controversy, providing an opportunity to balance recommendations from the US Environmental Protection Agency for mercury with those from the American Heart Association for fish consumption.     

Vitamin A in dietary supplements and fortified foods: too much of a good thing?

Vitamin A consumption by many Americans is quite high, in part because of the consumption of fortified foods and the use of vitamin supplements. Most multivitamin supplements provide two or more times the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin A because the daily value (DV) is based on 1968 and not current RDAs. Consumption of just one multivitamin often provides excessive vitamin A, the majority of it as preformed vitamin A esters. Given recent epidemiologic evidence that suggests a link between chronic intakes of vitamin A that exceed the RDA and hip fractures, it may be time to reexamine food and supplement fortification policies and to discontinue the clinical practice of prescribing two multivitamins to the elderly and other patients whose needs for certain micronutrients are high.     

Too much of a good thing is wonderful? A conceptual analysis of excessive examinations and diagnostic futility in diagnostic radiology

It has been argued extensively that diagnostic services are a general good, but that it is offered in excess. So what is the problem? Is not “too much of a good thing wonderful”, to paraphrase Mae West? This article explores such a possibility in the field of radiological services where it is argued that more than 40% of the examinations are excessive. The question of whether radiological examinations are excessive cries for a definition of diagnostic futility. However, no such definition is found in the literature. As a response, this article addresses the issue of diagnostic futility in five steps. First, it investigates whether the concept of therapeutic futility can be adapted to diagnostics. A closer analysis of the concept of therapeutic futility reveals that this will not do the trick. Second, the article scrutinizes whether there are sources for clarifying diagnostic futility in the extensive debate on excessive radiological examination. Investigating the debate’s terms and definitions reveals a disparate terminology and no clear concepts. On the contrary, the study uncovers that quite different and incompatible issues are at stake. Third, the article examines a procedural approach, which is widely used for settling controversies over utility by focusing on the role of the professionals. On scrutiny however, a procedural approach will not solve the problem in diagnostics. Fourth, a value analysis reveals how we have to decide on the negative value of excessive examinations before we can measure excess. The final and constructive part presents a definition of diagnostic futility drawing upon the lessons from the previous analytical steps. Altogether, too much radiological examination is not a good thing. This is simply because radiological examinations are not unanimously good. Excessive radiological examinations can be defined, but not by one simple general and value-neutral definition. We have to settle with contextually framed value-related definitions. Such definitions will state how bad “too much of a good thing” is and make it possible to assess how much of the bad thing there is. Hence we have to know how bad it is before we can tell how much of it there is in the world.     

Is lung cancer screening using CT a good idea?

Screening with low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality. However, the high incidence of false positive screening results, the uncertainty of the duration of screening and the lack of a cost-effectiveness analysis should be overcome before introduction in a daily clinical practice.     

Pay-for-performance: too much of a good thing? A conversation with Martin Roland. Interview by Robert Galvin

As the United States moves down the road of pay-for-performance (P4P), concerns about unintended consequences are foremost in the minds of policymakers. Initial results from the world's most ambitious P4P program, the United Kingdom's Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), indicate that while quality improvements exceeded expectations, so too did the amount of funds paid out, straining the National Health Service (NHS) budget. Martin Roland, one of the leading U.K. health services researchers and an adviser to the QOF, gives his views on what went right and what went wrong, and he offers his advice to the United States about using financial incentives to improve quality.     

Participants,Physicians or Programmes: Participants’ educational level and initiative in cancer screening

This study is an in-depth examination of at whose initiative (participant, physician or screening programme) individuals participate in cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening across the EU-28. Special attention is paid to (1) the association with educational attainment and (2) the country’s cancer screening strategy (organised, pilot/regional or opportunistic) for each type of cancer screened. Data were obtained from Eurobarometer 66.2 ‘Health in the European Union’ (2006). Final samples consisted of 10,186; 5443 and 9851 individuals for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Multinomial logistic regressions were performed. Surprisingly, even in countries with organised screening programmes, participation in screenings for cervical, breast and colorectal cancer was most likely to be initiated by the general practitioner (GP) or the participant. In general, GPs were found to play a crucial role in making referrals to screenings, regardless of the country’s screening strategy. The results also revealed differences between educational groups with regard to their incentive to participate in cervical and breast cancer screening and, to a lesser extent, in colorectal cancer screening. People with high education are more likely to participate in cancer screening at their own initiative, while people with less education are more likely to participate at the initiative of a physician or a screening programme. Albeit, the results varied according to type of cancer screening and national screening strategy.