The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 127, Issue 11, 1997, Pages 966-972

  Schwartz, Lisa M ^a   Woloshin, Steven ^a   Black, William C ^b   Welch, H Gilbert ^a  

^a VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CALCULATION; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0030666187     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Berger ES, Hendee WR. The expression of health risk information. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:1507-8.
2. Harris R, Leininger L. Clinical strategies for breast cancer screening: weighing and using the evidence. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:539-47.
3. Kalet A, Roberts JC, Fletcher R. How do physicians talk with their patients about risks? J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:402-4.
4. Kong A, Barnett GO, Mosteller F, Youtz C. How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med. 1986:315:740-4.
5. Murphy DJ, Burrows D, Santilli S, Kemp AW, Tenner S, Kreling B, et al. The influence of the probability of survival on patients' preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:545-9.
6. Schonwetter RS, Walker RM, Kramer DR, Robinson BE. Resuscitation decision making in the elderly: the value of outcome data. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:295-300.
7. Breast Cancer Screening in Women Ages 40-49. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine, Reference Section; 1997: NIH Consensus Statement No. 103.
8. O'Connor AM. Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:119-26.
9. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453-8.
10. O'Connor AM, Boyd NF, Tritchler O, Kruikob Y, Sutherland H, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments: the influence of framing, medium and rater variables. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:453-63.
11. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916-21.
12. Meyerowitz BE, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52: 500-10.
13. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC Jr, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982:306:1259-62.
14. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW. Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:543-8.
15. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC. Cancer patients' decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of "framing" information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival. Med Decis Making. 1995; 15:4-12.
16. Kahneman D, Tversky A. The psychology of preferences. Sci Am. 1982; 246:160-73.
17. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121-4.
18. Eraker SA, Sox HC Jr. Assessment of patients' preferences for therapeutic outcomes. Med Decis Making. 1981;1:29-39.
19. Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, Rothman AJ, Moyer A, Beauvais J. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol. 1995;14:178-84.
20. Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making. 1995;15:152-7.
21. Kirsch l, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. Adult Literacy in America. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 1993.
22. Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, Parikh NS, Pitkin K, Coates WC, et al. Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. JAMA. 1995;274:1677-82.
23. Black WC, Nease RF Jr, Tosteson AN. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer lnst. 1995;87:720-31.
24. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Patients' interpretations of probability terms. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:237-40.
25. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 114th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census; 1994.
26. Gigerenzer G. The psychology of good judgment: frequency formats and simple algorithms. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:273-80.
27. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:728-33.
28. Nakao M, Axelrod S. Numbers are better than words. Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. Am J Med. 1983;74:1061-5.
29. Begley S. The mammogram war. Newsweek. 1997;24 Feb:54-8.
30. Sandman PM, Weinstein ND. Miller P. High risk or low: how location on a "risk ladder" affects perceived risk. Risk Anal. 1994;14:35-45.
31. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH. Interpretation of graphic data by patients in a general medicine clinic. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5:402-5.
32. Levine MN, Gafni A, Markham B, MacFarlane D. A bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient's preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:53-8.