Preventing Overdiagnosis 2025 Keynote Speakers
Introducing the expert voices shaping the conversation at the Preventing Overdiagnosis 2025 conference. Learn more and download the draft conference programme.
Session One: Incentives, Drivers and Mitigation of Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment
09:00 – 10:30, Wednesday 03 September
Dr Margaret McCartney
Dr Margaret McCartney is a GP, Senior Lecturer at the University of St Andrews and freelance writer and broadcaster. Her PhD in conflicts of interest in medicine was published in 2024.
Conflicts of interest in healthcare - an eternally wicked problem?
Abstract - Conflicts of interest in healthcare are a driver of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and are associated with higher costs and poorer quality care. Various ways to manage conflicts have been used, mainly resting on transparency, for example, declarations of interest or Sunshine Acts. However, it is unclear whether these are effective and they may produce unintended consequences. This might result in financial interactions being 'normalised', perceptions of greater expertise in conflicted individuals and competition between companies and professionals. Most research so far has focussed on financial conflicts of interest, but other conflicts, including intellectual, institutional, loyalty and medical conflicts of interest have also being cited as important causes of potential bias.
This talk will examine the current practice in terms of declaring and managing conflicts of interests and how these can be best used to avoid the consequences of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. It will explore ways in which conflicts have led to ineffective uses of healthcare resources, and means to try and limit these.
Dr John Brandt Brodersen
Dr John Brandt Brodersen is a general practitioner with more than thirty years of clinical experience. He holds a PhD in public health and psychometrics and his work focuses on prevention, medical screening, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, overuse, overmedicalisation, evidence-based medicine and multimorbidity. He is based at Copenhagen University Hospital and is also affiliated with the Research Unit for General Practice in Copenhagen. In addition, he holds a visiting professorship at the Research Unit for General Practice at UiT The Arctic University of Norway in Tromsø.
Dr Brodersen’s research centres on improving our understanding of overdiagnosis and developing strategies to prevent it. His work also addresses the reduction of social inequities in health and the pursuit of more sustainable healthcare systems.
Soon We Will All Be Patients: Incentives, Causes, Mechanisms and Drivers of Overdiagnosis
Abstract - There is broad consensus that healthcare policy and practice should be grounded in robust evidence rather than individual attitudes, personal convictions or political agendas. Yet in practice, this ideal proves far more complex. A wide array of factors may shape how evidence is interpreted and applied.
In this keynote, I will provide an overview of the incentives, causes, mechanisms and systemic drivers underpinning the phenomenon of overdiagnosis. Some of these drivers are well-documented in the scientific literature; others are based on professional experience and remain largely speculative. Still, others may be theoretically plausible but have yet to be empirically investigated.
What is striking is the paucity of rigorous research in this area. The literature on the incentives and systemic forces that promote overdiagnosis is, at best, limited often poorly substantiated and in some domains, entirely absent. This presents a significant challenge. If we are to meaningfully reduce the incidence of overdiagnosis or ideally, to prevent it altogether we must first identify, as comprehensively as possible, the underlying incentives and structural drivers that give rise to it. Only then can effective countermeasures be designed and implemented.
Dr David Chambers
Dr David Chambers is the Deputy Director for Implementation Science in the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
Addressing overdiagnosis through the lens of implementation (and de-implementation) science
Abstract - The gap between evidence-based interventions and their widespread use in healthcare practice has long been a topic of concern for researchers and practitioners. In recent decades, the field of implementation science has sought to address this gap, most frequently through focus on the relative underuse of evidence-based health care interventions. More recently, implementation scientists have also recognised the challenge of overuse, leading some to develop and refine frameworks articulating the dimensions of de-implementation. This talk will consider drivers of overdiagnosis through the lens of implementation science, orienting the audience toward efforts to assess facilitators and barriers, develop and test strategies to address under-use and over-use of effective interventions, and describe a framework specifically developed to address nuances of de-implementation. The session will offer examples drawn from cancer research and care that distinguish among actions needed to address over-diagnosis and present key questions to be considered in the next generation of studies.
Session Two: Overdiagnosis in Clinical Practice and Public Health
08:30 – 10:00, Thursday 04 September
Dr Elspeth Davies
Dr Elspeth Davies is a postdoctoral researcher at the University Oxford in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences. A medical anthropologist by background, her work seeks to understand some of the social and ethical issues surrounding cancer early detection. She is particularly interested in in medicalisation and (over)diagnosis, injustices and inequalities and the relationship between academia and activism.
Beyond polarisation: How do we engage with people who disagree with us?
Abstract - This talk explores the polarisation and sometimes-fierce conflict that has arisen in the field of cancer early detection and overdiagnosis. Drawing on anthropological observations of conferences like this one, it seeks to explain how and why this area of research has become such a “battlefield” and how we might do better in the future. It ends by asking if the term “overdiagnosis” is part of the problem and might be reaching retirement.
Professor Adam Cifu
Dr Adam Cifu is a Professor of Medicine and general internist at the University of Chicago. He is the author of over 140 peer-reviewed publications, the co-author of the textbook Symptom to Diagnosis: An Evidence-Based Guide and a book about medical decision making for the lay audience, Ending Medical Reversal. Since 2022, he has written for Sensible Medicine.
The Role of Patients in Overdiagnosis & Overuse: Blaming the Victim
Abstract - Physicians and the healthcare industry, rightly, take most of the blame for overdiagnosis and overuse in healthcare. However, patients do play a role. How do our biases, our culture and our susceptibilities encourage patients to want more, in addition to better healthcare?
Associate Professor Sebastian Lundström
Sebastian Lundström is an adjunct professor in child and adolescent psychiatric sciences at Lund University and an associate professor at the University of Gothenburg and works part-time as a clinical psychologist in the child and adolescent mental health services. His academic work has circled around prevalence, etiology, co-existence and trajectories of neurodevelopment disorders.
Title of talk
Abstract - During the last decades there has been a substantial increase in the number of assigned ADHD and autism diagnoses in the western world. In some locations the increase has been as large as 10-20-fold, despite the fact that there is no influx of ADHD or autism symptoms in the general population. The increase seems to explained by diagnostic substitution, assignment of diagnoses on considerably fewer symptoms and an increase in perceived dysfunction. In parallel with the increase in diagnosis a new patient group has emerged, namely individuals who wish to re-assess their initial diagnosis for various reasons. This talk will present data from an ongoing study that has examined the rationale behind the reasons for wanting to re-assess the diagnosis.
Session Three: Developing the Methods for Assessing Overdiagnosis
09:00 – 10:30, Friday 05 September
Professor Denise O’Connor
Professor Denise O’Connor is an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Leadership Fellow and Deputy Director of the Wiser Health Care Unit in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University. Her research program is in implementation science, and she collaborates with health agencies and consumers to design and evaluate solutions to improve value in healthcare for Australians. She leads implementation research in three Centres of Research Excellence (CREs) including Wiser Healthcare, comprising >120 researchers across 5 Australian universities, Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in the Digital Era across One Health (>300 researchers across >15 orgs) and Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network (>400 members from >12 organisations). With her collaborators she has authored >150 publications and awarded >$50 million in research funding.
Effective solutions to reduce healthcare overuse
Abstract - This presentation examines the global problem of healthcare overuse and explores evidence-based solutions to address this complex challenge. Drawing from the latest research and theoretical frameworks, it explores how unnecessary healthcare interventions contribute to system waste while compromising patient outcomes. The solutions presented reflect contemporary thinking in healthcare practice, policy and patient engagement that have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing overuse whilst maintaining or improving quality of care.
Professor Michael Borre
Professor Michael Borre is a senior consultant in urology at Aarhus University Hospital and professor of clinical medicine at Aarhus University. His clinical and academic focus includes early diagnosis, treatment outcomes and patient-centered care in prostate cancer. He has authored more than 300 peer-reviewed publications. He is chairman of the Danish Urological Society (2023-), the Danish Prostate Cancer Group (2005-) and the Danish Prostate Cancer Registry (2010-). For over a decade (2012-2024), he also chaired The Danish Multidisciplinary Cancer Groups, overseeing national efforts to improve cancer care through clinical guidelines and quality monitoring.
Prostate Cancer: Navigating the Fine Line Between Early Detection and Overdiagnosis – Lessons from Denmark
Abstract - Overdiagnosis in prostate cancer has become a paradigmatic challenge in modern oncology. The widespread use of PSA testing has led to an epidemic of early-stage prostate cancer diagnoses, many of which would never cause harm if left undetected. Drawing on detailed Danish registry data and 25 years of national experience, this presentation explores how a country without formal PSA screening still faced widespread overdiagnosis. The talk reviews patient-level harms, healthcare system burdens and evolving mitigations such as active surveillance and mpMRI filtering. It also addresses methodological challenges in defining and quantifying overdiagnosis, offering a practical framework for international comparison and future refinement of diagnostic policy.
Mette Kalager
Mette Kalager is Professor of Medicine at the University of Oslo, Researcher at Oslo University Hospital and Family practitioner in a rural town in Norway. Head of the Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of health and Society at University of Oslo and Department of Transplantation Medicine at Oslo University Hospital and an Associate Editor of Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association.
Mette Kalager received her MD in 1996 from the University of Oslo, Norway, and her PhD from the University of Oslo in 2012. After her internship she worked in general practice and surgery and was the Head of the Norwegian Breast cancer Screening Program at the Cancer Registry of Norway. Dr Kalager’s main research interests include clinical trials, epidemiology and public health. She is involved in several large-scale international trials in colorectal cancer screening and surveillance, and has recently written a book about Proportionality in Health Crisis. Dr Kalager serves on the Board of the French Institute du Cancer and is the elected leader of the Norwegian Medical Research Society.
Does cancer screening prolong life?
Abstract - Screening of cancer is a health intervention aiming to reduce cancer burden with the long-term consequence to increase longevity. In health efficiency analysis of screening the assumption is that screening increases longevity. But is this true?
Session Four: Communication of Overdiagnosis and the Role of Direct-to-Consumer Testing
15:50 – 17:00, Friday 05 September
Dr Clare Davenport
Dr Clare Davenport is an Associate Clinical Professor at the University of Birmingham with more than 20 years’ experience of medical test evaluation. Her particular research interests are in evaluating the impacts of medical tests on patient outcomes and improving the accessibility of evidence for diagnostic decision making. She is currently funded by Cancer Research UK to develop Guidance for the evaluation, regulation and marketing of Direct-to-Consumer-Tests.
What’s on the box? Do we have informed consent for Direct-to-Consumer Testing?
Abstract - Public familiarity with COVID testing during the pandemic, health system constraints, regulatory reform and the promotion of consumer autonomy have created the perfect storm for the expansion of direct-to-consumer (DTC) self-tests. This session will explore the current UK DTC self-test high street market from the perspectives of informed consent, public trust, impact on healthcare services and safety. Drawing on the examples of DTC pharmaceuticals, NHS endorsed self-testing and forthcoming regulatory reform, the session will consider what action is needed and by whom to minimise harm and to ensure that the potential benefits of DTC self-tests are realised.
Emma Grundtvig Gram
Emma Grundtvig Gram is a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen, researching how medical misinformation and direct-to-consumer marketing unfold on social media platforms. Her work investigates the commercial and gendered dimensions of health messaging online, with a focus on medicalisation and overdiagnosis. Emma is the chair of the POD Early and Mid-Career Researchers Group.
Misleading Medical Marketing: Tackling the Rise of Direct-to-Consumer Health Content On Social Media
Abstract - What happens when medical marketing meets the algorithms of social media? This talk explores the scope and impact of medical misinformation online, focusing on how medical products and services are marketed directly to consumers through platforms like Instagram, TikTok and YouTube. From women’s health influencers to testosterone testing kits, the presentation examines the blurring lines between personal health advice, commercial promotion and professional care. Drawing on international examples, it highlights the harms, hidden conflicts of interest and emerging trends, and opens conversations on what we can do about it. What might responsible communication and regulatory 'best practice' look like in this space? And who should be held accountable?
Dr Rohin Frances
Dr Rohin Francis is a consultant interventional and general cardiologist at the Essex Cardiothoracic Centre and at Colchester University Hospital Foundation Trust, where he is also Clinical Lead. He graduated from St George’s Hospital Medical School, trained in Cambridge and undertook his doctoral research at UCL. Rohin is also a science communicator, making public-facing videos about medical science, predominantly via his YouTube Channel Medlife Crisis, where he frequently covers topics such as social medica medical influencers and their role in promoting non evidence-based therapies and tests.
A clinician’s take on the wacky world of wellness-influencer-to-consumer communication
Abstract - Social media has revolutionised how health ideas are communicated to the public and created an entirely new ecosystem of personalities promoting tests, services or products that they frequently directly financially benefit from. This largely unregulated world has created an environment where patients might consult a doctor with dramatically divergent preconceptions, based on which algorithmic direction they have been guided. How does this affect the doctor-patient relationship, and how should both patient and doctor navigate this new landscape?