Patient Education and Counseling
Volume 84, Issue 2 , Pages 251-256 , August 2011

“There is nothing to worry about”: Gynecologists’ counseling on mammography

  • Odette Wegwarth

      Affiliations

    • Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany
    • Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: +49 30 82406 695; fax: +49 30 82406 394.
    • ,
  • Gerd Gigerenzer

      Affiliations

    • Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany
    • Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Germany

Received 14 January 2010 ,Revised 15 July 2010 ,Accepted 17 July 2010.

References 

  1. Gøtzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?. Lancet. 2000;355:129–134
  2. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4:Article CD001877
  3. Charles CA, 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 EK, Ward JE. 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 LM, Woloshin S, Welch H. Know your chances: understanding health statistics. White River Junction, VT: VA Outcomes Group; 2005;
  6. Baines CJ. 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 LE. Long-term effects of mammography. Screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359:909–919
  9. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG. 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 JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. New Engl J Med. 1998;338:1089–1096
  11. Mettler FA, Upton AC, Kelsey CA, Ashby RN, Rosenberg RD, Linver MN. 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 LM. 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 CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: Does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916–921
  17. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:543–548
  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 LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. 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 LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients to make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007;8:53–96
  21. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:516–527
  22. Phelps RH, Shanteau J. Livestock judges: How much information can an expert use?. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1978;21:209–219
  23. Yates JF. Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1990;
  24. Kurzenhäuser S. Welche Informationen vermitteln deutsche Gesundheitsbroschüren über die Screening-Mammographie? (What information do German health brochures provide on mammography screening?), 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. In:  Gigerenzer G,  Gray JAM editor. Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: envisioning healthcare 2020. Strüngmann Forum Report. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010;p. 137–151
  30. Eddy DM. Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: problems and opportunities. In:  Kahneman D,  Slovic P,  Tversky A editor. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982;p. 249–267
  31. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med. 1998;73:538–540
  32. Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE. General practitioners’ self rating of skills in evidence based medicine: a validation study. Brit Med J. 2002;324:950–951
  33. Ghosh AK, 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

PII: S0738-3991(10)00426-X

doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.025

Patient Education and Counseling
Volume 84, Issue 2 , Pages 251-256 , August 2011

Article Tools