The challenge of overdiagnosis begins with its definition

The implicit social contract underpinning healthcare is that it will reduce illness and preventable death and improve quality of life. But sometimes these promises are not delivered. Sometimes health services take people who don\u27t need intervention, subject them to tests, label them as sick or at risk, provide unnecessary treatments, tell them to live differently, or insist on monitoring them regularly. These interventions don\u27t improve things for people; they produce complications or illness, reduce quality of life, or even cause premature death. Active health intervention is not always a good thing: it can be too much medicine, or produce what is often called overdiagnosis. Although the concept of overdiagnosis has been described in the literature for nearly 50 years in relation to cancer screening, it was Welch and colleagues\u27 2011 book, Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health, that popularised the term. Overdiagnosis is now an acknowledged problem for patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers; it is discussed in journals and at specialist conferences and addressed through policy and practice initiatives. There is, however, no formal, agreed definition of overdiagnosis. Rather, the word has become a banner under which disparate people with similar general concerns can unite. This vagueness and breadth allows the appearance of unity but does not serve the more exacting demands of research and healthcare. Here we examine the meanings of overdiagnosis more closely and discuss related challenges for healthcare professionals, patients, and researchers. If overdiagnosis is to be understood and mitigated, the broad concept should be subdivided into different problems and its ethical dimensions better acknowledged