SUMMARY
Disease screening is one of the most important tools of modern public health and preventive medicine. Screening programs have a long and distinguished history in controlling epidemics of infectious diseases and developing treatments for chronic diseases. As these screening programs have been implemented over the years, significant experience has been gained. If screening programs are poorly conceived, organized, or implemented, they can lead to questionable interventions and put groups and individuals at risk. In this article, we have tried to shed light in detail on the organization of screening programs, the characteristics of the examinations, and what to pay attention to when implementing screening programs.
Keywords: disease screening, screening programs, screening tests, universal screening, selective screening

---

REFERENCES

1. Raffles A, Mackie A, Muir Gray JA. Screening: evidence and practice. 2nd ed. // Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019
2. Wilson J.M.G., Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease // WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GENEVA 1968 (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/37650/WHO_PHP_34.pdf?sequence=17, по состоянию на 27 ноября 2019 г.)
3. Əliyev R.R. İnsultların epidemiologiyası və risk amilləri: Dünya və Azərbaycan // National Journal of Neurology, Special Issue, 2012:11–24. doi: 10.61788/njn.spec.12.02
4. Aliyev R, Mammadbayli A, Shiraliyeva R. Association of lifestyle, psychological, and biological risk factors with multiple sclerosis: A case-control study // Turk J Neurol. 2025;31(3):278–293. doi: 10.55697/tnd.2025.494
5. Руководство по ранней диагностике рака [Guide to cancer early diagnosis]. Женева: Всемирная организация здравоохранения; 2018. Лицензия: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
6. Bolejko A, Zackrisson S, Hagell P, Wann-Hansson C. A roller coaster of emotions and sense – coping with the perceived psychosocial consequences of a falsepositive screening mammography // J Clin Nurs. 2014; 23:2053-62
7. Jessica T DeFrank, Barbara K Rimer, J Michael Bowling, Jo Anne Earp et al Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects? // J Med Screen 2012 Mar; 19(1):35-41. doi: 10.1258/jms.2012.011123
8. Zorzela L., Loke Y.K., Ioannidis J.P., Golder S., et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews // BMJ. 2016 Şub 1:352:i157. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i157
9. Bond M., Pavey T., Welch K., Cooper C. et al. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. // Health Technol Assess. 2013 Mar;17(13):1-170, v-vi. doi: 10.3310/hta17130
10. Yang C., Sriranjan V., Abou-Setta A.M., Poluha W. et al. Anxiety associated with colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy: a systematic review. // Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Dec;113(12):1810-1818. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0398-8
11. Petticrew MP, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D, Wright K. False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications // Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(5):1-120
12. Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C et al. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jan;45(1):16-26. doi: 10.1002/uog.14636
13. Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Løberg M, Zauber AG et al. Population-Based colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial // JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Jul 1;176(7):894-902. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0960
14. Chou R, Helfand M. Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms // Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jun 21;142(12 Pt 2):1090-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_part_2-200506211-00009
15. Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA et al.The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review // Br J Cancer. 2013 Jun 11;108(11):2205-40. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.177
16. Kohn L., Mambourg F., Breast cancer screening: a tool for informed decision making // Rev Med Brux. 2018;39(4):410-415
17. Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R, Snowball J et al. Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England // Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;40(3):712-8. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr008
18. Deandrea S, Molina-Barceló A, Uluturk A, Moreno J et al. Presence, characteristics and equity of access to breast cancer screening programmes in 27 European countries in 2010 and 2014. Results from an international survey // Prev Med. 2016 Oct:91:250-263. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.021
19. Aliyev R.R., Mehtiyeva Sh.N., Shiraliyeva R.K. Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of multiple sclerosis in the southern region of the Republic of Azerbaijan // Pak J Med Sci. – 2025. – Vol. 41, No. 2. – P. 437–442. doi: 10.12669/pjms.41.2.11373
20. Aliyev R.R., Mehtiyeva Sh.N., Shiraliyeva R.K. Characteristics of multiple sclerosis incidence in the northern regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan // World of Medicine and Biology. – 2025. – Vol. 21, No. 1(91). – P. 16–20. doi: 10.26724/2079-8334-2025-1-91-16-20
21. Christensen H, Pezzella FR, Roaldsen MB, et al.; SAP-E collaborators. Status on stroke and stroke care in Europe 2023: Stroke Service Tracker 2023 data based on 1,460,360 strokes in 47 European nations // European Stroke Journal. 2026;11(2):aakag008. doi: 10.1093/esj/aakag008
22. Sawaya G, Guirguis-blake J, LeFevere M, Harris R et al. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit // Ann Intern Med. 2007 Dec 18;147(12):871-5. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-12-200712180-00007