Dafina Petrova1,2, Rocio Garcia-Retamero1,2,3, Edward T Cokely2,3. 1. Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, University of Granada, Granada, Spain (DP, RGR) 2. Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA (DP, RGR, ETC) 3. Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany (RGR, ETC)
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Decisions about cancer screenings often involve the consideration of complex and counterintuitive evidence. We investigated psychological factors that promote the comprehension of benefits and harms associated with common cancer screenings and their influence on shared decision making. METHODS: In experiment 1, 256 men received information about PSA-based prostate cancer screening. In experiment 2, 355 women received information about mammography-based breast cancer screening. In both studies, information about potential screening outcomes was provided in 1 of 3 formats: text, a fact box, or a visual aid (e.g., mortality with and without screening and rate of overdiagnosis). We modeled the interplay of comprehension, perceived risks and benefits, intention to participate in screening, and desire for shared decision making. RESULTS: Generally, visual aids were the most effective format, increasing comprehension by up to 18%. Improved comprehension was associated with 1) superior decision making (e.g., fewer intentions to participate in screening when it offered no benefit) and 2) more desire to share in decision making. However, comprehension of the evidence had a limited effect on experienced emotions, risk perceptions, and decision making among those participants who felt that the consequences of cancer were extremely severe. CONCLUSIONS: Even when information is counterintuitive and requires the integration of complex harms and benefits, user-friendly risk communications can facilitate comprehension, improve high-stakes decisions, and promote shared decision making. However, previous beliefs about the effectiveness of screening or strong fears about specific cancers may interfere with comprehension and informed decision making.
OBJECTIVE: Decisions about cancer screenings often involve the consideration of complex and counterintuitive evidence. We investigated psychological factors that promote the comprehension of benefits and harms associated with common cancer screenings and their influence on shared decision making. METHODS: In experiment 1, 256 men received information about PSA-based prostate cancer screening. In experiment 2, 355 women received information about mammography-based breast cancer screening. In both studies, information about potential screening outcomes was provided in 1 of 3 formats: text, a fact box, or a visual aid (e.g., mortality with and without screening and rate of overdiagnosis). We modeled the interplay of comprehension, perceived risks and benefits, intention to participate in screening, and desire for shared decision making. RESULTS: Generally, visual aids were the most effective format, increasing comprehension by up to 18%. Improved comprehension was associated with 1) superior decision making (e.g., fewer intentions to participate in screening when it offered no benefit) and 2) more desire to share in decision making. However, comprehension of the evidence had a limited effect on experienced emotions, risk perceptions, and decision making among those participants who felt that the consequences of cancer were extremely severe. CONCLUSIONS: Even when information is counterintuitive and requires the integration of complex harms and benefits, user-friendly risk communications can facilitate comprehension, improve high-stakes decisions, and promote shared decision making. However, previous beliefs about the effectiveness of screening or strong fears about specific cancers may interfere with comprehension and informed decision making.
Authors: Guylène Thériault; Pascale Breault; James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Guylène Thériault; Pascale Breault; James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Peter Nguyen; Jennifer McIntosh; Adrian Bickerstaffe; Sanjaya Maddumarachchi; Kara-Lynne Cummings; Jon D Emery Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Lori L DuBenske; Sarina B Schrager; Mary E Hitchcock; Amanda K Kane; Terry A Little; Helene E McDowell; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia; Christine M Gunn Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2021-01-17