Search

Objectives: To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry., Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes., Setting: Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians' experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom., Participants: 16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%)., Outcome Measures: The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped., Results: Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians' views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions . Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a 'middle road'. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome., Conclusions: Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DJK has received speaker fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme in the past 2 years. In 2020, BM acted as an expert witness for Health Canada in a legal case related to marketing of an unregistered product in Canada. There are no other conflicts to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Overdiagnosis and overuse of healthcare services harm individuals, take resources that could be used to address underuse, and threaten the sustainability of health systems. These problems are attracting increasing attention in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Unaware of any review of relevant evidence, we conducted a scoping review of the evidence around overdiagnosis and overuse of diagnostic and screening tests in LMICs., Design: Scoping review., Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Index Medicus for relevant studies published until 24 May 2021, with no restrictions on date or language. We categorised included studies by major focus (overdiagnosis, overuse of tests, or both) and main themes (presence or estimates of extent; drivers; consequences and solutions)., Results: We identified 2763 unique records and included 162 articles reporting on 154 studies across 55 countries, involving over 2.8 million participants and/or requests for tests. Almost half the studies focused on overdiagnosis (70; 45.5%), one-third on overuse of tests (61; 39.6%) and one-fifth on both (23; 14.9%). Common overdiagnosed conditions included malaria (61; 39.6%) and thyroid cancer (25; 16.2%), estimated to be >70% in China. Overused tests included imaging (n=25 studies) such as CT and MRI; laboratory investigations (n=18) such as serological tests and tumour markers; and procedures (n=14) such as colonoscopy. Drivers included fear of conflict with patients and expanding disease definitions. Common consequences included unnecessary treatments such as antimalarials, and wasted resources, with costs of malaria overdiagnosis estimated at US$86 million in Sudan in 1 year alone. Only 9% of studies discussed solutions, which included addressing inappropriately lowered diagnostic thresholds and reforming test-ordering processes., Conclusions: Overdiagnosis and overuse of tests are widespread in LMICs and generate significant harm and waste. Better understanding of the problems and robust evaluation of solutions is needed, informed by a new global alliance of researchers and policy-makers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Although the media can influence public perceptions and utilisation of healthcare, journalists generally receive no routine training in interpreting and reporting on medical research. Given growing evidence about the problems of medical overuse, the need for quality media reporting has become a greater priority. This study aimed to codesign and assess the feasibility of a multicomponent training intervention for journalists in Australia., Design: A small pragmatic feasibility study using a pre- and postdesign., Setting: 90 min online workshop., Participants: Eight journalists currently working in Australia, recruited through the study's journalist advisor and existing contacts of the researchers., Intervention: The training intervention covered a range of topics, including study designs, conflicts of interest, misleading medical statistics, population screening and overdiagnosis. The intervention also provided tools to help journalists with reporting, including a Tip Sheet and list of expert contacts in health and medicine. Preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires were administered via Qualtrics., Measures: Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and journalists' knowledge of overdiagnosis and common issues with health stories. Quantitative results were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Qualitative data were thematically analysed., Results: All participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires, and 6 completed the 6-week follow-up (75% retention). Feasibility findings suggest the intervention is acceptable and relevant to journalists, with participants indicating the workshop increased confidence with reporting on medical research. We observed increases in knowledge preworkshop to postworkshop for all knowledge measures on overdiagnosis and common issues with media coverage of medicine. Analysis of free-text responses identified several areas for improvement, such as including more examples to aid understanding of the counterintuitive topic of overdiagnosis and more time for discussion., Conclusions: Piloting suggested the multicomponent training intervention is acceptable to journalists and provided important feedback and insights to inform a future trial of the intervention's impact on media coverage of medicine., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Promotional media coverage of early detection tests is an important driver of overdiagnosis. Following research evidence that global media coverage presents the benefits of testing healthy people far more frequently than harms, and gives little coverage to overdiagnosis, we sought to examine journalists' views on media reporting of tests, overdiagnosis, and strategies to improve critical reporting on tests., Design: Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted between February and March 2020 and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework thematic analysis was used to analyse the data., Participants and Setting: Twenty-two journalists (mainly specialising in health reporting, average 14.5 years' experience) based in Australia., Results: This sample of journalists acknowledged the potential harms of medical tests but felt that knowledge of harms was low among journalists and the public at large. Most were aware of the term overdiagnosis, but commonly felt that it is challenging to both understand and communicate in light of strong beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Journalists felt that newsworthiness in the form of major public health impact was the key ingredient for stories about medical tests. The journalists acknowledged that factors, like the press release and 'click bait culture' in particular, can influence the framing of coverage about tests. Lack of knowledge and training, as well as time pressures, were perceived to be the main barriers to critical reporting on tests. Journalists felt that training and better access to information about potential harms would enable more critical reporting., Conclusions: Effectively communicating overdiagnosis is a challenge in light of common beliefs about the benefits of testing and the culture of current journalism practices. Providing journalists with training, support and better access to information about potential harms of tests could aid critical reporting of tests., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RM and AB are members of the Scientific Committee of the Preventing Overdiagnosis international conferences. CM, KM, AB and RM are lead investigators on Wiser Healthcare, a research collaboration to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To determine the extent and nature of changes in utilisation of healthcare services during COVID-19 pandemic., Design: Systematic review., Eligibility: Eligible studies compared utilisation of services during COVID-19 pandemic to at least one comparable period in prior years. Services included visits, admissions, diagnostics and therapeutics. Studies were excluded if from single centres or studied only patients with COVID-19., Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and preprints were searched, without language restrictions, until 10 August, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, health services and impact., Data Analysis: Risk of bias was assessed by adapting the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, and a Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care tool. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics, graphical figures and narrative synthesis., Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was change in service utilisation between prepandemic and pandemic periods. Secondary outcome was the change in proportions of users of healthcare services with milder or more severe illness (eg, triage scores)., Results: 3097 unique references were identified, and 81 studies across 20 countries included, reporting on >11 million services prepandemic and 6.9 million during pandemic. For the primary outcome, there were 143 estimates of changes, with a median 37% reduction in services overall (IQR -51% to -20%), comprising median reductions for visits of 42% (-53% to -32%), admissions 28% (-40% to -17%), diagnostics 31% (-53% to -24%) and for therapeutics 30% (-57% to -19%). Among 35 studies reporting secondary outcomes, there were 60 estimates, with 27 (45%) reporting larger reductions in utilisation among people with a milder spectrum of illness, and 33 (55%) reporting no difference., Conclusions: Healthcare utilisation decreased by about a third during the pandemic, with considerable variation, and with greater reductions among people with less severe illness. While addressing unmet need remains a priority, studies of health impacts of reductions may help health systems reduce unnecessary care in the postpandemic recovery., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020203729., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RM has helped organise the Preventing Overdiagnosis international scientific conferences., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The use of more medicalised labels can increase both concern about illness and the desire for more invasive treatment. This study analyses the media's coverage of an Analysis article in The BMJ which generated a large amount of high-profile international media coverage. It aims to understand how to better communicate messages about low-risk cancers and overdiagnosis to the public., Design: Content analysis of media coverage., Setting: Media was identified by Isentia Media Portal, searched in Google News and cross-checked in Factiva and Proquest databases from August 2018., Methods: Media headlines, full text and open access public comments responding to the coverage on the article proposing to 'rename low-risk conditions currently labelled as cancer' were analysed to determine the main themes., Results: 45 original media articles and their associated public comments (n=167) were identified and included in the analysis. Overall, headlines focused on cancer generally and there was little mention of 'low-risk', 'overdiagnosis' or 'overtreatment'. The full text generally presented a more balanced view of the evidence and were supportive of the proposal, however, public responses tended to be more negative towards the idea of renaming low-risk cancers and indicated confusion. Comments seemed to focus on the headlines rather than the full article., Conclusions: This study offers a novel insight into media coverage of the complex and counterintuitive problem of overdiagnosis. Continued deliberation on how to communicate similar topics to the public through the mainstream media is needed. Future work in the area of low-risk cancer communication should consider the powerful impact of people's previous experience with a cancer diagnosis and the criticism about being paternalistic and concealing the truth from patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RM and AB are members of the Scientific Committee of Preventing Overdiagnosis international conferences. RM, AB and KM are lead investigators on Wiser Healthcare a research collaboration to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To evaluate workshops delivered to citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interest in healthcare, transparency databases which disclose industry payments in the USA and Australia and the pros and cons of advocacy groups accepting industry sponsorship., Design: Thematic analysis of workshop participant recorded discussions, and pre, post and 3-month follow-up questionnaires on confidence and knowledge about financial conflicts of interest, transparency databases and the merits of advocacy organisations accepting industry sponsorship., Participants and Setting: 48 citizen health advocates participated in a half-day workshop, held in four Australian cities, which ended with a 1-hour recorded discussion. Participants were recruited with assistance from leading state-based health advocacy organisations., Results: The thematic analysis of the recorded discussions revealed two major themes, (i) transparency and (ii) relationships with industry; and three minor themes: a lack of awareness about conflicts of interest and transparency, issues relating to trust and next steps in terms of potential reforms. In relation to transparency, participants felt strong support for transparency, strongly favouring the mandatory, extensive and accessible US Open Payments over the self-regulatory Australian model. Participants also noted that transparency had limitations, including the utility of disclosed information. In relation to industry sponsorship of advocacy groups, some participants expressed an openness to and support for accepting sponsorship, while many expressed a caution around potential downsides. Questionnaire results showed increases in both confidence and knowledge after the workshop, though only 23 of 48 participants returned the 3-month follow-up questionnaire., Conclusions: Following a half-day workshop, citizen health advocates recruited by leading health advocacy organisations expressed strong support for tough transparency rules, and mixed feelings about advocacy groups accepting sponsorship from industry. Study limitations include a non-representative sample and a large drop-out at the 3-month post-workshop follow-up., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Much testing in medicine is aimed at healthy people to facilitate the early detection of health conditions. However, there is growing evidence that early detection is a double-edged sword that may cause harm in the form of overdiagnosis. The media can be seen as a major generator of consumer demand for health services. Previous research shows that media coverage tends to overstate the benefits and downplay the harms of medical interventions for the sick, and often fails to cover relevant conflicts of interest of those promoting those interventions. However, little is known about how the benefits and harms of testing the healthy are covered by media. This study will examine the media coverage of the benefits and harms of testing the healthy, and coverage of potential conflicts of interest of those promoting the testing., Methods and Analysis: We will examine five tests: 3D mammography for the early detection of breast cancer; blood liquid biopsy for the early detection of cancer; blood biomarker tests for the early detection of dementia; artificial intelligence technology for the early detection of dementia; and the Apple Watch Series 4 electrocardiogram sensor for the early detection of atrial fibrillation. We will identify media coverage using Google News and the LexisNexis and ProQuest electronic databases. Sets of two independent reviewers will conduct story screening and coding. We will include English language media stories referring to any of the five tests from January 2016 to May 2019. We will include media stories if they refer to any benefits or harms of the test for our conditions of interest. Data will be analysed using categorical data analysis and multinomial logistic regression., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical approval is required for this study. Results will be presented at relevant scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed literature., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To describe the lived experience of a possible prostate cancer overdiagnosis in men who resisted recommended treatment., Design: Qualitative interview study SETTING: Australia PARTICIPANTS: 11 men (aged 59-78 years) who resisted recommended prostate cancer treatment because of concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment., Outcomes: Reported experience of screening, diagnosis and treatment decision making, and its impact on psychosocial well-being, life and personal circumstances., Results: Men's accounts revealed profound consequences of both prostate cancer diagnosis and resisting medical advice for treatment, with effects on their psychological well-being, family, employment circumstances, identity and life choices. Some of these men were tested for prostate-specific antigen without their knowledge or informed consent. The men felt uninformed about their management options and unsupported through treatment decision making. This often led them to develop a sense of disillusionment and distrust towards the medical profession and conventional medicine. The findings show how some men who were told they would soon die without treatment (a prognosis which ultimately did not eventuate) reconciled issues of overdiagnosis and potential overtreatment with their own diagnosis and situation over the ensuing 1 to 20+ years., Conclusions: Men who choose not to have recommended treatment for prostate cancer may avoid treatment-associated harms like incontinence and impotence, however our findings showed that the impact of the diagnosis itself is immense and far-reaching. A high priority for improving clinical practice is to ensure men are adequately informed of these potential consequences before screening is considered., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KM is supported by a NHMRC Principle Research Fellowship no 1121110. KM, RM, AB, BK, KP are involved in organising the not-for-profit international Preventing Overdiagnosis conference, (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To investigate public perceptions of overdiagnosis and overtreatment in low-risk thyroid cancer and explore opinions regarding the proposed strategy to change the terminology of low-risk cancers., Design: Qualitative study using focus groups that included a guided group discussion and presentation explaining thyroid cancer, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and proposed communication strategies. Transcripts were analysed thematically., Setting: Sydney, Australia., Participants: Forty-seven men and women of various ages from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds with no personal history of thyroid cancer., Results: Participants had low pre-existing general awareness of concepts of overdiagnosis and overtreatment and expressed concern regarding this new information in relation to thyroid cancer. Overall, participants understood why the strategy to change the terminology was being proposed and could see potential benefits including reducing the negative psychological impact and stigma associated with the term 'cancer'; however, many still had reservations about the strategy. The majority of the concerns were around their worry about the risk of further disease progression and that changing the terminology may create confusion and cause patients not to take the diagnosis and its associated managements seriously. Despite varied views towards the proposed strategy, there was a strong overarching desire for greater patient and public education around overdiagnosis and overtreatment in both thyroid cancer and cancer generally in order to complement any revised terminology and/or other mitigation strategies., Conclusions: We found a strong and apparently widely held desire for more information surrounding the topic of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Careful consideration of how to inform both the public and current patients about the implications of a change in terminology, including changes to patients' follow-up or treatments, would be needed if such a change were to go ahead., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RM and KM report that they are co-organisers of the Preventing Overdiagnosis conferences, and the 2017 Australian National Summer on overdiagnosis. AB reports she is chief investigator on a Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence Grant (1104136)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To investigate the proportion of potentially relevant undisclosed financial ties between clinical practice guideline writers and pharmaceutical companies., Design: Cross-sectional study of a stratified random sample of Australian guidelines and writers., Setting: Guidelines available from Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council guideline database, 2012-2014, stratified across 10 health priority areas., Population: 402 authors of 33 guidelines, including up to four from each area, dependent on availability: arthritis/musculoskeletal (3); asthma (4); cancer (4); cardiovascular (4); diabetes (4); injury (3); kidney/urogenital (4); mental health (4); neurological (1); obesity (1). For guideline writers with no disclosures, or who disclosed no ties, a search of disclosures in the medical literature in the 5 years prior to guideline publication identified potentially relevant ties, undisclosed in guidelines. Guidelines were included if they contained recommendations of medicines, and writers included if developing or writing guidelines., Main Outcome Measures: Proportions of guideline writers with potentially relevant undisclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies active in the therapeutic area; proportion of guidelines including at least one writer with a potentially relevant undisclosed tie., Results: 344 of 402 writers (86%; 95% CI 82% to 89%) either had no published disclosures (228) or disclosed they had no ties (116). Of the 344 with no disclosed ties, 83 (24%; 95% CI 20% to 29%) had potentially relevant undisclosed ties. Of 33 guidelines, 23 (70%; 95% CI 51% to 84%) included at least one writer with a potentially relevant undisclosed tie. Writers of guidelines developed and funded by governments were less likely to have undisclosed financial ties (8.1%vs30.6%; risk ratio 0.26; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; p<0.001)., Conclusions: Almost one in four guideline writers with no disclosed ties may have potentially relevant undisclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies. These data confirm the need for strategies to ensure greater transparency and more independence in relationships between guidelines and industry., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HJ was an employee of NHMRC. SG and GD are employees of NHMRC. LB is an employee of The University of Sydney and had no funding specifically for this work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To investigate patterns of industry-sponsored educational events that focus on specific health conditions for which there are concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment., Design and Setting: This retrospective cohort study examines publicly reported industry-sponsored events in Australia from October 2011 to September 2015 for three conditions potentially subject to overdiagnosis and overtreatment: depression, osteoporosis and overactive bladder. We used a database of transparency reports to identify events with a focus on depression, osteoporosis and overactive bladder and compared these with other sponsored events. We hypothesised that companies marketing treatments for each condition would sponsor related events and that target audiences would mainly work in primary care, reflecting a broad patient population., Main Outcome Measures: Event and attendee characteristics, sponsoring companies, related marketed treatments, cost-effectiveness ratings and dispensing rates., Results: Over the study period, we identified 1567 events focusing on depression, 1375 on osteoporosis and 190 on overactive bladder (total n=3132, with 96 660 attendees). These events were attended by primary care doctors more often than sponsored events without a focus on these three conditions: relative risk (RR)=3.06 (95% CI 2.81 to 3.32) for depression, RR=1.48 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.55) for osteoporosis and RR=2.59 (95% CI 2.09 to 3.21) for overactive bladder. Servier, which markets agomelatine and AstraZeneca (quetiapine) sponsored 51.2% and 23.0% of depression events, respectively. Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline, which co-market denosumab, sponsored 49.5% of osteoporosis events and Astellas and Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) (mirabegron and solifenacin) sponsored 80.5% of overactive bladder events., Conclusions: This 4-year overview of industry-sponsored events on three overdiagnosed and overtreated conditions found that primary care clinicians were often targeted, dinner was often provided and that a few companies sponsored most events. In most cases, sponsors' products are not cost-effective choices for the specified condition. This pattern highlights the need for professional education to be free of commercial sponsorship., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BM reported that she was an expert witness on behalf of plaintiffs in a Canadian class action suit concerning cardiovascular risks of a testosterone gel., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: There have been calls to remove 'carcinoma' from terminology for in situ cancers such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We investigated the effect of describing DCIS as 'abnormal cells' versus 'pre-invasive breast cancer cells' on women's concern and treatment preferences., Setting and Participants: Community sample of Australian women (n=269) who spoke English as their main language at home., Design: Randomised comparison within a community survey. Women considered a hypothetical scenario involving a diagnosis of DCIS described as either 'abnormal cells' (arm A) or 'pre-invasive breast cancer cells' (arm B). Within each arm, the initial description was followed by the alternative term and outcomes reassessed., Results: Women in both arms indicated high concern, but still indicated strong initial preferences for watchful waiting (64%). There were no differences in initial concern or preferences by trial arm. However, more women in arm A ('abnormal cells' first term) indicated they would feel more concerned if given the alternative term ('pre-invasive breast cancer cells') compared to women in arm B who received the terms in the opposite order (67% arm A vs 52% arm B would feel more concerned, p=0.001). More women in arm A also changed their preference towards treatment when the terminology was switched from 'abnormal cells' to 'pre-invasive breast cancer cells' compared to arm B. In arm A, 18% of women changed their preference to treatment while only 6% changed to watchful waiting (p=0.008). In contrast, there were no significant changes in treatment preference in arm B when the terminology was switched (9% vs 8% changed their stated preference)., Conclusions: In a hypothetical scenario, interest in watchful waiting for DCIS was high, and changing terminology impacted women's concern and treatment preferences. Removal of the cancer term from DCIS may assist in efforts towards reducing overtreatment., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: Overdiagnosis occurs when someone is diagnosed with a disease that will not harm them. Against a backdrop of growing evidence and concern about the risk of overdiagnosis associated with certain screening activities, and recognition of the need to better inform the public about it, we aimed to ask what the Australian community understood overdiagnosis to mean., Design, Setting and Participants: Content analysis of verbatim responses from a randomly sampled community telephone survey of 500 Australian adults, between January and February 2014. Data were analysed independently by two researchers., Main Outcome Measures: Analysis of themes arising from community responses to open-ended questions about the meaning of overdiagnosis., Results: The sample was broadly representative of the Australian population. Forty per cent of respondents thought overdiagnosis meant exaggerating a condition that was there, diagnosing something that was not there or too much diagnosis. Twenty-four per cent described overdiagnosis as overprescribing, overtesting or overtreatment. Only 3% considered overdiagnosis meant doctors gained financially. No respondents mentioned screening in conjunction with overdiagnosis, and over 10% of participants were unable to give an answer., Conclusions: Around half the community surveyed had an approximate understanding of overdiagnosis, although no one identified it as a screening risk and a quarter equated it with overuse. Strategies to inform people about the risk of overdiagnosis associated with screening and diagnostic tests, in clinical and public health settings, could build on a nascent understanding of the nature of the problem., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)