To screen or not to screen: What factors influence complex screening decisions?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 247-260

  Petrova, Dafina ^a   Garcia Retamero, Rocio ^b   Catena, Andrés ^a   van der Pligt, Joop ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Emotions; Numeracy; Risk literacy; Science literacy; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; COMPREHENSION; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MASS SCREENING; PSYCHOLOGY; THEORETICAL MODEL; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; COMPREHENSION; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MODELS, THEORETICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84973539326     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/xap0000086     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Austin, L. T., Ahmad, F., McNally, M. J., & Stewart, D. E. (2002). Breast and cervical cancer screening in Hispanic women: A literature review using the health belief model. Women's Health Issues, 12, 122-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1049-3867(02)00132-9
2. Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 143-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660
3. Barratt, A. (2015). Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: A 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), 350, h867. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h867
4. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York, NY: Springer.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
6. Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 25-47.
7. Cokely, E. T., & Kelley, C. M. (2009). Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 20-33.
8. Curry, S. J., & Emmons, K. M. (1994). Theoretical models for predicting and improving compliance with breast cancer screening. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 302-316.
9. Davids, S. L., Schapira, M. M., McAuliffe, T. L., & Nattinger, A. B. (2004). Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 310-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.20801.x
10. Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2015). Development and validation of the Scientific Reasoning Scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1906
11. Elstad, E. A., Sutkowi-Hemstreet, A., Sheridan, S. L., Vu, M., Harris, R., Reyna, V. F., . . . Brewer, N. T. (2015). Clinicians' perceptions of the benefits and harms of prostate and colorectal cancer screening. Medical Decision Making, 35, 467- 476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15569780
12. Esserman, L. J., Thompson, I. M., Jr., & Reid, B. (2013). Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: An opportunity for improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310, 797-798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.108415
13. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:11::AID-BDM3333.0.CO;2-S
14. Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 65-116.
15. Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (2002). The information-motivationbehavioral skills model. In R. J. DiClemente, R. A. Crosby, & M. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research: Strategies for improving public health (pp. 40-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2010). Statistical numeracy for health: A cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170, 462-468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.481
17. Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2011). Do low-numeracy people avoid shared decision making? Health Psychology, 30, 336-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022723
18. Galesic, M., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology, 28, 210-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014474
19. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2011). 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, 17, 270-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023677
20. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2013). Communicating health risks with visual aids. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 392- 399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413491570
21. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010). How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25, 1323-1329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9
22. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2012). Doc, what would you do if you were me? On self-other discrepancies in medical decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 38-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026018
23. Garcia-Retamero, R., Müller, S. M., Catena, A., & Maldonado, A. (2009). The power of causal beliefs and conflicting evidence on causal judgments and decision making. Learning and Motivation, 40, 284-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2009.04.001
24. Garcia-Retamero, R., Wicki, B., Cokely, E. T., & Hanson, B. (2014). Factors predicting surgeons' preferred and actual roles in interactions with their patients. Health Psychology, 33, 920-928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000061
25. Ghazal, S., Cokely, E. T., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2014). Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition. Judgment and Decision Making, 9, 15-34.
26. Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Breast cancer screening pamphlets mislead women. British Medical Journal, 348, g2636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2636
27. Gigerenzer, G., Mata, J., & Frank, R. (2009). Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101, 1216-1220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp237
28. Gøtzsche, P. C., & Jørgensen, K. J. (2013). Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6, CD001877.
29. Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002). Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet, 359, 881- 884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07948-5
30. Harris, R. P., Sheridan, S. L., Lewis, C. L., Barclay, C., Vu, M. B., Kistler, C. E., . . . Brewer, N. T. (2014). The harms of screening: A proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, 174, 281-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12745
31. Hersch, J., Barratt, A., Jansen, J., Irwig, L., McGeechan, K., Jacklyn, G., . . . McCaffery, K. (2015). Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 385, 1642-1652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60123-4
32. Hersch, J., Jansen, J., Barratt, A., Irwig, L., Houssami, N., Howard, K., . . . McCaffery, K. (2013). Women's views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: A qualitative study. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition.), 346, f158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f158
33. Hoffman, R. M., Lewis, C. L., Pignone, M. P., Couper, M. P., Barry, M. J., Elmore, J. G., . . . Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2010). Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: The DECISIONS survey. Medical Decision Making, 30(Suppl.), 53S-64S.
34. Ilic, D., Neuberger, M. M., Djulbegovic, M., & Dahm, P. (2013). Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, CD004720.
35. Johnson, C. E., Mues, K. E., Mayne, S. L., & Kiblawi, A. N. (2008). Cervical cancer screening among immigrants and ethnic minorities: A systematic review using the Health Belief Model. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 12, 232-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e31815d8d88
36. Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407- 424.
37. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732-735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
38. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
39. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:171::AID-SCE63.0.CO;2-C
40. Lejarraga, T., Pachur, T., Frey, R., & Hertwig, R. (2015). Decisions from experience: From monetary to medical gambles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1877
41. Lerman, C., Croyle, R. T., Tercyak, K. P., & Hamann, H. (2002). Genetic testing: Psychological aspects and implications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 784-797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.3.784
42. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
43. Lipkus, I. M., Peters, E., Kimmick, G., Liotcheva, V., & Marcom, P. (2010). Breast cancer patients' treatment expectations after exposure to the decision aid program adjuvant online: The influence of numeracy. Medical Decision Making, 30, 464 - 473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09360371
44. Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21, 37-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100105
45. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.
46. Lopes, L. L. (1987). Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 255-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60416-5
47. Miller, S. M., Shoda, Y., & Hurley, K. (1996). Applying cognitive-social theory to health-protective behavior: Breast self-examination in cancer screening. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 70 -94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.70
48. Moyer, V. A., & the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2012). Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157, 120-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459
49. National Science Foundation. (2014). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: Author.
50. Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Wolkewitz, R. (2014). The affect gap in risky choice: Affect-rich outcomes attenuate attention to probability information. Decision, 1, 64-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dec0000006
51. Peters, E., & Bjalkebring, P. (2015). Multiple numeric competencies: When a number is not just a number. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 802-822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000019
52. Peters, E., Lipkus, I., & Diefenbach, M. A. (2006). The functions of affect in health communications and in the construction of health preferences. Journal of Communication, 56, S140-S162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00287.x
53. Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x
54. Petrova, D., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2015). Understanding harms and benefits of cancer screening: A model of factors that shape informed decision making. Medical Decision Making, 35, 847-858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15587676
55. Petrova, D., van der Pligt, J., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2014). Feeling the numbers: On the interplay between risk, affect, and numeracy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 191-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1803
56. Reyna, V. F. (2008). A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy trace theory. Medical Decision Making, 28, 850-865. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08327066
57. Reyna, V. F. (2012). A new intuitionism: Meaning, memory, and development in Fuzzy-Trace Theory. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 332-359.
58. Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 943-973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017327
59. Rimer, B. K., Briss, P. A., Zeller, P. K., Chan, E. C., & Woolf, S. H. (2004). Informed decision making: What is its role in cancer screening? Cancer, 101(Suppl.), 1214-1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20512
60. Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education & Behavior, 2, 328-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403
61. Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12, 185-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00334
62. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966-972. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003
63. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Fowler, F. J., Jr., & Welch, H. G. (2004). Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 71-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.1.71
64. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Sox, H. C., Fischhoff, B., & Welch, H. G. (2000). US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: Cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), 320, 1635-1640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7250.1635
65. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., & Welch, H. G. (2005). Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Medical Decision Making, 25, 290-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X05276860
66. Schwartz, P. H. (2011). Questioning the quantitative imperative: Decision aids, prevention, and the ethics of disclosure. The Hastings Center Report, 41, 30-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hcr.2011.0029
67. Sheridan, S. L., Harris, R. P., & Woolf, S. H., & the Shared Decision- Making Workgroup of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2004). Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 26, 56-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.011
68. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
69. Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M. L., & Macgregor, D. G. (2005). Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology, 24(Suppl.), S35-S40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S35
70. Strech, D. (2014). Participation rate or informed choice? Rethinking the European key performance indicators for mammography screening. Health Policy, 115, 100-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013 .11.012
71. Sutkowi-Hemstreet, A., Vu, M., Harris, R., Brewer, N. T., Dolor, R. J., & Sheridan, S. L. (2015). Adult patients' perspectives on the benefits and harms of overused screening tests: A qualitative study. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30, 1618-1626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3283-9
72. van den Berg, M., Timmermans, D. R., ten Kate, L. P., van Vugt, J. M., & van der Wal, G. (2006). Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Education and Counseling, 63, 110-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.007
73. Waller, J., Douglas, E., Whitaker, K. L., & Wardle, J. (2013). Women's responses to information about overdiagnosis in the UK breast cancer screening programme: A qualitative study. British Medical Journal Open, 3, e002703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002703
74. Waller, J., Osborne, K., & Wardle, J. (2015). Enthusiasm for cancer screening in Great Britain: A general population survey. British Journal of Cancer, 112, 562-566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.643
75. Wegwarth, O., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). "There is nothing to worry about": Gynecologists' counseling on mammography. Patient Education and Counseling, 84, 251-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.025
76. Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., Black, W. C., & Kramer, B. S. (2012). Cancer screening campaigns-Getting past uninformative persuasion. The New England Journal of Medicine, 367, 1677-1679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1209407
77. Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2013). The right tool is what they need, not what we have: A taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Medical Care Research and Review, 70(Suppl.), 37S-49S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558712458541
78. Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Fagerlin, A., & Ubel, P. A. (2010). Risky feelings: Why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%. Patient Education and Counseling, 81(Suppl.), S87-S93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.041