Psychological Research and the Prostate-Cancer Screening Controversy

Psychological Science

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 547-553

  Arkes, Hal R ^a   Gaissmaier, Wolfgang ^b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

decision making; health; judgment; policy making; scientific communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862172318     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797612437428     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Andriole G.L.,Crawford E.D.,Grubb R.L.,Buys S.S.,Chia D.,Church T.R.,Berg C.D.Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;360:1310-1319.
2. Arkes H.R.The nonuse of psychological research at two federal agencies.Psychological Science. 2003;14:1-6.
3. Arkes H.R.,Harkness A.R.Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1983;112:117-135.
4. CampanileC. (2011, October8). Rudy rips "prostate panel" a new one. New York Post. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/rudy_rips_prostate_test_panel_new_2wq1v7rrw1IYI8IRaJzTXI.
5. Chan E.C.,Barry M.J.,Vernon S.W.,Ahn C.Physicians and their personal prostate cancer-screening practices with prostate-specific antigen: A national survey.Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2006;21:257-259.
6. Chou R.,Croswell J.M.,Dana T.,Bougatsos C.,Blazina I.,Fu R.,Lin K.Screening for prostate cancer: A review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.Annals of Internal Medicine. 2011;155:762-771.
7. ChristensenD. M. (2011). [Letter to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]. Retrieved from http://donnachristensen.house.gov/sites/donnachristensen.house.gov/files/documents/Prostate%20Cancer%20Screening%20Recs.Nov.2011.PDF.
8. de Wit J.B. F.,Das E.,Vet R.What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception.Health Psychology. 2008;27:110-115.
9. DjulbegovicM.BeythR. J.NeubergerM. M.StoffsT. L.ViewegJ.DjulbegovicB.DahmP. (2010). Screening for prostate cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 341, c4543. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4543.
10. Fagerlin A.,Wang C.,Ubel P.A.Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics?.Medical Decision Making. 2005;25:398-405.
11. Communicating risks and benefits: An evidence-based user's guide. Fischhoff B.Brewer N.T.Downs J.T., ed. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2011:.
12. Galesic M.,Garcia-Retamero R.Statistical numeracy for health: A cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples.Archives of Internal Medicine. 2010;170:462-468.
13. Garcia-Retamero R.,Cokely E.T.Effective communication of risks to young adults: Using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2011;17:270-287.
14. Garcia-Retamero R.,Galesic M.How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health.Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2010;25:1323-1329.
15. Garcia-Retamero R.,Galesic M.,Gigerenzer G.Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect?.Medical Decision Making. 2010;30:672-684.
16. Gigerenzer G.,Mata J.,Frank R.Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2009;101:1216-1220.
17. Hamill R.,Wilson T.,Nisbett R.E.Insensitivity to sample size: Generalizing from atypical cases.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980;39:578-589.
18. Hawley S.T.,Zikmund-Fisher B.,Ubel P.,Jankovic A.,Lucas T.,Fagerlin A.The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices.Patient Education and Counseling. 2008;73:448-455.
19. Ilic D.,O'Connor D.,Green S.,Wilt T.J.Screening for prostate cancer: An updated Cochrane systematic review.British Journal of Urology International. 2011;107:882-891.
20. Jenni K.E.,Loewenstein G.Explaining the identifiable victim effect.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1997;14:235-257.
21. Kogut T.,Ritov I.The "identified victim" effect: An identified group, or just a single individual?.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2005;18:157-167.
22. Liersch M.J.,McKenzie C.R. M.Duration neglect by numbers-and its elimination by graphs.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2009;108:303-314.
23. Lipkus I.M.,Samsa G.,Rimer B.K.General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples.Medical Decision Making. 2001;21:37-44.
24. Loeb S.,Carter H.B.,Berndt S.I.,Ricker W.,Schaeffer E.M.Complications after prostate biopsy: Data from SEER-Medicare.Journal of Urology. 2011;186:1830-1834.
25. Meehl P.E.,Rosen A.Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores.Psychological Bulletin. 1955;52:194-216.
26. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49, January 21-23, 1997.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1997;89:1015-1026.
27. Ross L.E.,Berkowitz Z.,Ekwueme D.U.Use of the prostate specific antigen test among U.S. men: Findings from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2008;17:636-644.
28. SandblomG.VarenhorstE.RosellJ.LöfmanO.CarlssonP. (2011). Randomised prostate cancer screening trial: 20 year follow-up. British Medical Journal, 342, d1539. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1539.
29. Schröder F.H.,Hugosson J.,Roobol M.J.,Tammela T.L. J.,Ciatto S.,Nelen V.,Auvinen A.Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study.New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;360:1320-1328.
30. Schröder F.H.,Hugosson J.,Roobol M.J.,Tammela T.L. J.,Ciatto S.,Nelen V.,Auvinen A.Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.New England Journal of Medicine. 2012;366:981-990.
31. Schwartz L.M.,Woloshin S.,Black W.C.,Welch G.H.The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography.Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;127:966-971.
32. Schwartz L.M.,Woloshin S.,Welch H.G.The drug facts box: Providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm.Medical Decision Making. 2007;27:655-662.
33. Schwartz L.M.,Woloshin S.,Welch H.G.Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms.Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;150:516-527.
34. Shaklee H.,Tucker D.A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events.Memory & Cognition. 1980;8:459-467.
35. Slovic P."If I look at the mass I will never act": Psychic numbing and genocide.Judgment and Decision Making. 2007;2:79-95.
36. Thompson I.M.,Ankerst D.P.,Chi C.,Lucia M.S.,Goodman P.J.,Crowley J.J.,Coltman C.A.Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or lower.Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;294:66-70.
37. Ubel P.A.,Jepson C.,Baron J.The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: Effects on treatment choices.Medical Decision Making. 2001;21:60-68.
38. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2011). Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement draft: Summary of recommendation and evidence. Retrieved from http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf12/prostate/draftrecprostate.htm.
39. Ward W.C.,Jenkins H.M.The display of information and the judgment of contingency.Canadian Journal of Psychology. 1965;19:231-241.
40. Woloshin S.,Schwartz L.M.Numbers needed to decide.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2009;101:1163-1165.
41. Woloshin S.,Schwartz L.M.,Welch H.G.Patients and medical statistics: Interest, confidence, and ability.Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005;20:996-1000.