"There is nothing to worry about": Gynecologists' counseling on mammography

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 84, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 251-256

  Wegwarth, Odette ^a,b   Gigerenzer, Gerd ^a,b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Informed decision making; Mammography screening; Risk communication; Risk comprehension

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; GERMANY; GYNECOLOGY; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PATIENT COUNSELING; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMMUNICATION; COUNSELING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; GERMANY; GYNECOLOGY; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TELEPHONE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79959984437     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.025     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Gøtzsche P.C., Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?. Lancet 2000, 355:129-134.
2. Gøtzsche P.C., Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, 4. Article CD001877. 10.1002/14651858.CD001877.pub2.
3. Charles C.A., Gafni A., Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or, It takes at least two to tango). Social Sci Med 1997, 44:681-692.
4. Slaytor E.K., Ward J.E. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. Brit Med J 1998, 317:263-264.
5. Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Welch H. Know your chances: understanding health statistics 2005, VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction, VT.
6. Baines C.J. Women and breast cancer: Is it really possible for the public to be well informed?. Can Med Assoc J 1992, 142:2147-2148.
7. Nyström L., Larsson L.-G., Wall S., Rutqvist L., Andersson I., Bjurstam N., et al. An overview of the Swedish randomised mammography trials: total mortality pattern and the representativity of the study cohorts. J Med Screen 1996, 3:85-87.
8. Nyström L., Andersson I., Bjurstam N., Frisell J., Nordenskjöld B., Rutqvist L.E. Long-term effects of mammography. Screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002, 359:909-919.
9. Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Sox H.C., Fischhoff B., Welch H.G. U.S. women's reactions to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. Brit Med J 2000, 320:1635-1640.
10. Elmore J.G., Barton M.B., Moceri V.M., Polk S., Arena P.J., Fletcher S.W. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. New Engl J Med 1998, 338:1089-1096.
11. Mettler F.A., Upton A.C., Kelsey C.A., Ashby R.N., Rosenberg R.D., Linver M.N. Benefit versus risks from mammography: a critical reassessment. Cancer 1996, 77:903-909.
12. Beyth-Marom R. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. J Forecast 2006, 1:257-269.
13. Welkenhuysen M., Evers-Kiebooms G., d'Ydewalle G. The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient Educ Counsel 2001, 43:179-187.
14. Woloshin S., Schwartz L.M. Numbers needed to decide. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101:1163-1165.
15. Sarfati D., Howden-Chapman P., Woodward A., Salmond C. Does the frame affect the picture? A study into how attitudes to screening for cancer are affected by the way benefits are expressed. J Med Screen 1998, 5:137-140.
16. Naylor C.D., Chen E., Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: Does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?. Ann Intern Med 1992, 117:916-921.
17. Malenka D.J., Baron J.A., Johansen S., Wahrenberger J.W., Ross J.M. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med 1993, 8:543-548.
18. Covey J. A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:638-654.
19. Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Welch H.G. Risk communication in clinical practice: putting cancer in context. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1999, 25:124-133.
20. Gigerenzer G., Gaissmaier W., Kurz-Milcke E., Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients to make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2007, 8:53-96.
21. Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Welch H.G. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009, 150:516-527.
22. Phelps R.H., Shanteau J. Livestock judges: How much information can an expert use?. Organ Behav Hum Perform 1978, 21:209-219.
23. Yates J.F. Judgment and decision making 1990, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
24. Kurzenhäuser S. Welche Informationen vermitteln deutsche Gesundheitsbroschüren über die Screening-Mammographie?. Zeitschrift für ärztliche Fortbildung und Qualitätssicherung 2003, 97:53-57.
25. Gigerenzer G., Wegwarth O. Krebsfrüherkennung: Transparenz, Evidenz und informiertes Entscheiden? Cancer screening: transparency, evidence, and informed decision-making?. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2008, 102:513-519.
26. Nuovo J., Melnikow J., Chang D. Reporting number need to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials. J Amer Med Assoc 2002, 287:2813-2814.
27. Sedrakyan A., Shih C. Improving depiction of benefits and harms: analyses of studies of well-known therapeutics and review of high-impact medical journals. Med Care 2007, 45:523-528.
28. Gigerenzer G., Mata J., Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101:1216-1220.
29. Wegwarth O., Gigerenzer G. Statistical illiteracy in doctors. Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: envisioning healthcare 2020. Strüngmann Forum Report 2010, 137-151. MIT Press, Cambridge. G. Gigerenzer, J.A.M. Gray (Eds.).
30. Eddy D.M. Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: problems and opportunities. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases 1982, 249-267. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky (Eds.).
31. Hoffrage U., Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med 1998, 73:538-540.
32. Young J.M., Glasziou P., Ward J.E. General practitioners' self rating of skills in evidence based medicine: a validation study. Brit Med J 2002, 324:950-951.
33. Ghosh A.K., Ghosh K. Translating evidence-based information into effective risk communication: current challenges and opportunities. J Lab Clin Med 2005, 145:171-180.
34. Mühlhauser I., Kasper J., Meyer G. FEND: understanding of diabetes prevention studies: questionnaire survey of professionals in diabetes care. Diabetologia 2006, 49:1742-1746.