Reliability and Validity
If two clinicians diagnose the same patient, but their diagnoses are different, one of them is wrong. He might diagnose the condition that the same patient might not be suffering from1. However, if the clinicians diagnose the same condition of the same patient, then the diagnosis could be reliable. The same stands true for 100 eyes having cataracts that two physicians detected. Their diagnosis could be considered reliable as they investigated the same 1000 eyes without knowing the others diagnosis.
Screening is used as an investigation tool for an illness. When the symptoms and signs for a medical condition are to be tested, it becomes imperative for the physician to give the right diagnosis for the conditions prevention. If the diagnosis is reliable after the repeated screening, suitable tests are recommended to the patient to prescribe the right medicines or treatment interventions2. The screening procedure should be both valid and reliable to obtain unbiased results. Validity is when the same diagnosis procedure is repeated, and the same resulting diagnosis is obtained, providing a true measure. The disease-prevention process is strengthened once the true diagnosis is gained so that at-risk patients accurately.
The socio-political ramifications could be seen in cost-of-illness or the burden of disease. Poor health outcomes with the wrong diagnosis could spread in the entire country, increasing the number of cases for diseases that might not get the right treatment3. The incidence and provenance of the diseases would also affect its longevity, further imposing economic costs for its prevention and spread. Also, unreliable screening and diagnosis could double the stress of the patient and fear of mistreatment that could make him socially isolated and socially suppressed. Lack of understanding for screening would add to the ill diagnosis that would hinder the communities from thriving and the economy to proposer in the long run.
References
1. Mark, M. DSM-5 emphasizes diagnostic reliability. Published March 2, 2012. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.47.5.psychnews_47_5_1-a.
2. Iragorri N & Spackman E. Assessing the value of screening tools: Reviewing the challenges and opportunities of cost-effectiveness analysis. Public Health Reviews. 2018; 39. https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40985-018-0093-8. Accessed February 15, 2022.
3. Jo C. Cost-of-illness studies: Concepts, scopes, and methods. Clinical and Molecular Hepatology. 2014;20(4): 327-337. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4278062/. Accessed February 15, 2022.
