Literature DB >> 22555966

Psychological research and the prostate-cancer screening controversy.

Hal R Arkes1, Wolfgang Gaissmaier.   

Abstract

In October of 2011, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released a draft report in which they recommended against using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test to screen for prostate cancer. We attempt to show that four factors documented by psychological research can help explain the furor that followed the release of the task force's report. These factors are the persuasive power of anecdotal (as opposed to statistical) evidence, the influence of personal experience, the improper evaluation of data, and the influence of low base rates on the efficacy of screening tests. We suggest that augmenting statistics with facts boxes or pictographs might help such committees communicate more effectively with the public and with the U.S. Congress.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22555966     DOI: 10.1177/0956797612437428

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  10 in total

1.  The amplification of risk in experimental diffusion chains.

Authors:  Mehdi Moussaïd; Henry Brighton; Wolfgang Gaissmaier
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Have screening harms become newsworthy? News coverage of prostate and colorectal cancer screening since the 2008 USPSTF recommendation changes.

Authors:  Emily A Elstad; Stacey L Sheridan; Joseph G L Lee; Christine Rini; Jo Anne Earp; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2014-05-24

3.  Prostate cancer survivors' beliefs about screening and treatment decision-making experiences in an era of controversy.

Authors:  Heather Orom; Willie Underwood; D Lynn Homish; Marc T Kiviniemi; Gregory G Homish; Christian J Nelson; Zvi Schiffman
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 3.894

4.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in Great Britain: a general population survey.

Authors:  J Waller; K Osborne; J Wardle
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Women's responses to changes in U.S. Preventive Task Force's mammography screening guidelines: results of focus groups with ethnically diverse women.

Authors:  Jennifer D Allen; Shirley Morrison Bluethmann; Margaret Sheets; Kelly Morrison Opdyke; Kathryn Gates-Ferris; Marc Hurlbert; Elizabeth Harden
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Making decisions in a complex information environment: evidential preference and information we trust.

Authors:  Vetta L Sanders Thompson
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  Cancer screening risk literacy of physicians in training: An experimental study.

Authors:  Dafina Petrova; Guiliana Mas; Gorka Navarrete; Tania Tello Rodriguez; Pedro J Ortiz; Rocio Garcia-Retamero
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  "The ultimate decision is yours": exploring patients' attitudes about the overuse of medical interventions.

Authors:  David Schleifer; David J Rothman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Decision making under uncertain categorization.

Authors:  Stephanie Y Chen; Brian H Ross; Gregory L Murphy
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-09-11

10.  Prostate cancer in Pennsylvania: The role of older age at diagnosis, aggressiveness, and environmental risk factors on treatment and mortality using data from the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry.

Authors:  Shirley M Bluethmann; Ming Wang; Emily Wasserman; Chixiang Chen; Nicholas G Zaorsky; Raymond J Hohl; Alicia C McDonald
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 4.452

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.