General discussions, page-32

I have been invited to read the article and I have read it. You might compare me to a control group who have not been invited to read the article.

The above is a partly satirical comment but relevant. The headline 'treatment' being investigated is an invitation to have one colonoscopy compared to a control group with no such invitation. This is important. The cost of a program includes the cost of recruitment and that includes the cost of non participation. Many are called but not all come.

Enough, I then typed a paragraph twice and deleted it- so I need to think more about what I took away from the article and what is relevant.

But what I did read, in the comments section, is that an individual who does undergo the procedure has a percentage better chance of not getting the disease or of not dying from that disease- and that is worth knowing. And there was an aside, regarding a variable that was not measured in the study, regarding those who receive advice following the procedure and following that advice.

So, I take away that there is value in having a colonoscopy and listening to any advice given subsequently and acting on that advice. But, that is not what was measured in the first place. But, money for health programs is scarce- and the cost of getting to that moment where a punter has his/her colonoscopy and advice and acts on that advice has to include the cost of inviting punters who do not avail and the cost of participants who do come but do not listen or act and etc etc.

Starting to ramble.

IMHO DYOR