Literature DB >> 14709578

Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.

Lisa M Schwartz1, Steven Woloshin, Floyd J Fowler, H Gilbert Welch.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Public health officials, physicians, and disease advocacy groups have worked hard to educate individuals living in the United States about the importance of cancer screening.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the public's enthusiasm for early cancer detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Survey using a national telephone interview of adults selected by random digit dialing, conducted from December 2001 through July 2002. Five hundred individuals participated (women aged > or =40 years and men aged > or =50 years; without a history of cancer). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to a survey with 5 modules: a general screening module (eg, value of early detection, total-body computed tomography); and 4 screening test modules: Papanicolaou test; mammography; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test; and sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.
RESULTS: Most adults (87%) believe routine cancer screening is almost always a good idea and that finding cancer early saves lives (74% said most or all the time). Less than one third believe that there will be a time when they will stop undergoing routine screening. A substantial proportion believe that an 80-year-old who chose not to be tested was irresponsible: ranging from 41% with regard to mammography to 32% for colonoscopy. Thirty-eight percent of respondents had experienced at least 1 false-positive screening test; more than 40% of these individuals characterized that experience as "very scary" or the "scariest time of my life." Yet, looking back, 98% were glad they had had the initial screening test. Most had a strong desire to know about the presence of cancer regardless of its implications: two thirds said they would want to be tested for cancer even if nothing could be done; and 56% said they would want to be tested for what is sometimes termed pseudodisease (cancers growing so slowly that they would never cause problems during the persons lifetime even if untreated). Seventy-three percent of respondents would prefer to receive a total-body computed tomographic scan instead of receiving 1000 dollars in cash.
CONCLUSIONS: The public is enthusiastic about cancer screening. This commitment is not dampened by false-positive test results or the possibility that testing could lead to unnecessary treatment. This enthusiasm creates an environment ripe for the premature diffusion of technologies such as total-body computed tomographic scanning, placing the public at risk of overtesting and overtreatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14709578     DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.1.71

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  204 in total

1.  Prostate cancers in men with low PSA levels--must we find them?

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening.

Authors:  Alexandra Barratt; Lyndal Trevena; Heather M Davey; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-08-28

3.  Leading the way in breast cancer screening and prevention.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Concordance of couples' prostate cancer screening recommendations from a decision analysis.

Authors:  Scott B Cantor; Robert J Volk; Murray D Krahn; Alvah R Cass; Jawaria Gilani; Susan C Weller; Stephen J Spann
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  The relationship of health numeracy to cancer screening.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Joan Neuner; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Mary Ann Gilligan; Elisabeth Hayes; Purushottam Laud
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 6.  Screening in Public Health and Clinical Care: Similarities and Differences in Definitions, Types, and Aims - A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mark Speechley; Abraham Kunnilathu; Eby Aluckal; M S Balakrishna; Benoy Mathew; Eldhose K George
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-03-01

7.  Incorporating lag time to benefit into prevention decisions for older adults.

Authors:  Sei J Lee; Rosanne M Leipzig; Louise C Walter
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-12-25       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Screening for cancer: valuable or not?

Authors:  Frank L Meyskens
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  Informed decision making before initiating screening mammography: does it occur and does it make a difference?

Authors:  Larissa Nekhlyudov; Rong Li; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Understanding cancer screening service utilization by Somali men in Minnesota.

Authors:  Barrett Sewali; Rebekah Pratt; Ekland Abdiwahab; Saeed Fahia; Kathleen Thiede Call; Kolawole S Okuyemi
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2015-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.