Literature DB >> 19335502

Legal concerns trigger prostate-specific antigen testing.

Johan Steurer1, Ulrike Held, Mathias Schmidt, Gerd Gigerenzer, Brigitte Tag, Lucas M Bachmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the United States, lawsuits against physicians have had an impact on their behaviour, resulting in overdiagnosis and other forms of 'defensive medicine'. Does a similar situation exist in Switzerland? Using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening as an example, we surveyed Swiss physicians and assessed the extent to which liability fears influenced their recommendation for testing.
METHODS: At a continuing medical education conference we distributed a pilot-tested questionnaire to 552 participants. Two hundred and fifty of them (45%) completed the questionnaire.
RESULTS: Of the participants, 158 (68%) were general practitioners and 73 (32%) specialists in internal medicine. Seventy-five per cent of both groups recommend regular PSA screening to men older than age 50. Yet only 56% of the general physicians and 53% of the internists believe that PSA measurement is an effective screening method. A substantial proportion of the physicians - 41% of general practitioners and 43% of internists - reported that they sometimes or often recommend this test for legal reasons.
CONCLUSIONS: Defensive medicine is not a phenomenon particular to the USA, but is also observable in Switzerland. This result is surprising, given that in Switzerland and other European countries, a physician who does not recommend a test or treatment whose effectiveness is controversial need not fear litigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19335502     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01024.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  10 in total

1.  On defensive decision making: how doctors make decisions for their patients.

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Mirta Galesic
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  [Cancer screening: curative or harmful? An ethical dilemma facing the physician].

Authors:  C Schaefer; L Weissbach
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Population-based patterns and predictors of prostate-specific antigen screening among older men in the United States.

Authors:  Michael W Drazer; Dezheng Huo; Mara A Schonberg; Aria Razmaria; Scott E Eggener
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians' non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations.

Authors:  Odette Wegwarth; Gert G Wagner; Gerd Gigerenzer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  US gynecologists' estimates and beliefs regarding ovarian cancer screening's effectiveness 5 years after release of the PLCO evidence.

Authors:  Odette Wegwarth; Gerd Gigerenzer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe.

Authors:  Gerd Gigerenzer; Jutta Mata; Ronald Frank
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Heuristic decision making in medicine.

Authors:  Julian N Marewski; Gerd Gigerenzer
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 5.986

8.  How defensive medicine is defined and understood in European medical literature: protocol for a systematic review.

Authors:  Nathalie Baungaard; Pia Skovvang; Elisabeth Assing Hvidt; Helle Gerbild; Merethe Kirstine Andersen; Jesper Lykkegaard
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  Why clinicians overtest: development of a thematic framework.

Authors:  Justin H Lam; Kristen Pickles; Fiona F Stanaway; Katy J L Bell
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  How defensive medicine is defined in European medical literature: a systematic review.

Authors:  Nathalie Baungaard; Pia Ladeby Skovvang; Elisabeth Assing Hvidt; Helle Gerbild; Merethe Kirstine Andersen; Jesper Lykkegaard
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.