Our work

Screening is the process of identifying apparently healthy people who may have a higher chance of having a disease or health condition. People can then be offered information, further tests and sometimes treatment. Screening programmes are only put in place if the planned screening, plus the further tests and treatment, is likely to do more good than harm, at a reasonable cost. Screening should always be a personal informed choice, where people are given evidence-based information about the possible benefits and risks of screening.

Evidence synthesis is a core process in public health research that systematically reviews, evaluates, and combines data from multiple, high-quality studies to answer specific research questions, such as those related to the effectiveness of health screening programmes. Unlike simple literature reviews, systematic reviews and evidence synthesis follow rigorous, transparent methods to minimise bias and provide the strongest possible evidence base. This critical step generates reliable, robust findings that are essential for informing UK government policy and guiding decisions by organisations such as the UK National Screening Committee, ensuring that public health interventions are supported by the best available scientific data.

Health economics and decision modelling is an applied field that evaluates effectiveness, long-term impact, resource requirements, costs, benefits, and harms of different healthcare interventions, including health screening programmes. By employing economic modelling, health economists analyse both the costs (such as testing, treatment, and follow-up) and the outcomes (such as quality of life and years of life saved) to determine whether a program provides value for money to the healthcare system. This crucial analysis helps decision-makers, like the UK National Screening Committee, prioritise limited NHS resources and ensures that public spending on health policy maximises health benefits for the population.