A Critical Review of the Screening Criteria Ratings and Recommendations by the UK National Screening Committee (NSC) for 30 Adult Conditions
Author(s)
Saffana Hilmy Mahmudah, MPH1, Jiwoo Sohn, None1, Joshua Rothwell, None2, Calm Mukichi, MBBS1, Ka Keat Lim, MPharm, MSc, PhD3.
1King's College London, London, United Kingdom, 2Department of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 3Lecturer in Health Economics, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
1King's College London, London, United Kingdom, 2Department of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 3Lecturer in Health Economics, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: The UK National Screening Committee (NSC) assesses and makes recommendations on population screening, including those targeting healthy adults living in the community. We aimed to examine the extent to which adult health conditions met the 20 population screening criteria, and how the criteria ratings had changed over time.
METHODS: From the UK NSC website and archive, we identified adult health conditions assessed for population screening. Using a bespoke form, we extracted from the public reports, past, present and future dates of assessment, and the criteria ratings in each assessment. From these, we tabulated (1) the criteria ratings for each condition, (2) the frequency each criterium was assessed and met across conditions, and (3) for conditions with multiple assessments, how the criteria ratings changed.
RESULTS: Of the 34 adult conditions assessed, 23 had not whereas 6 had been recommended for population screening, and 5 had been dropped. Between 2014-2024, these conditions had been assessed on average 2.2 times, which commonly took 5-10 years (45%) and up to 15 years between assessments. Each condition had 1-18 criteria assessed, with Criterion 1 (epidemiology), Criterion 4 (availability of simple, safe, precise and validated screening test) and Criterion 11 (evidence from randomised trials) being the most common. The three most met criteria were Criterion 19 (assistance to make informed choice; 6/9 assessments), Criterion 7 (agreed diagnosis policy; 12/22) and Criterion 10 (agreed treatment policy; 12/23). However, the trends varied based on whether screening was recommended, or whether a modification were considered. Criteria ratings improved in 17 instances, deteriorated in 27 and stagnated in all others.
CONCLUSIONS: To be recommended by the UK NSC, not all population screening criteria need to be met. By examining the criteria assessments over time, our findings highlight the trajectory of consideration by the UK NSC, which may help researchers strategise evidence generation.
METHODS: From the UK NSC website and archive, we identified adult health conditions assessed for population screening. Using a bespoke form, we extracted from the public reports, past, present and future dates of assessment, and the criteria ratings in each assessment. From these, we tabulated (1) the criteria ratings for each condition, (2) the frequency each criterium was assessed and met across conditions, and (3) for conditions with multiple assessments, how the criteria ratings changed.
RESULTS: Of the 34 adult conditions assessed, 23 had not whereas 6 had been recommended for population screening, and 5 had been dropped. Between 2014-2024, these conditions had been assessed on average 2.2 times, which commonly took 5-10 years (45%) and up to 15 years between assessments. Each condition had 1-18 criteria assessed, with Criterion 1 (epidemiology), Criterion 4 (availability of simple, safe, precise and validated screening test) and Criterion 11 (evidence from randomised trials) being the most common. The three most met criteria were Criterion 19 (assistance to make informed choice; 6/9 assessments), Criterion 7 (agreed diagnosis policy; 12/22) and Criterion 10 (agreed treatment policy; 12/23). However, the trends varied based on whether screening was recommended, or whether a modification were considered. Criteria ratings improved in 17 instances, deteriorated in 27 and stagnated in all others.
CONCLUSIONS: To be recommended by the UK NSC, not all population screening criteria need to be met. By examining the criteria assessments over time, our findings highlight the trajectory of consideration by the UK NSC, which may help researchers strategise evidence generation.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EPH3
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health, Health Policy & Regulatory, Organizational Practices
Topic Subcategory
Public Health
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas