Mammography Screening Preferences Among Screening-Eligible Women in Their 40s : A National U.S. Survey.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently changed its recommendation for mammography screening from informed decision making to biennial screening for women aged 40 to 49 years. Although many women welcome this change, some may prefer not to be screened at age 40 years. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a national probability-based U.S. survey to investigate breast cancer screening preferences among women aged 39 to 49 years. DESIGN: Pre-post survey with a breast cancer screening decision aid (DA) intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05376241). SETTING: Online national U.S. survey. PARTICIPANTS: 495 women aged 39 to 49 years without a history of breast cancer or a known BRCA1/2 gene mutation. INTERVENTION: A mammography screening DA providing information about screening benefits and harms and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate. MEASUREMENTS: Screening preferences (assessed before and after the DA), 10-year Gail model risk estimate, and whether the information was surprising and different from past messages. RESULTS: Before viewing the DA, 27.0% of participants preferred to delay screening (vs. having mammography at their current age), compared with 38.5% after the DA. There was no increase in the number never wanting mammography (5.4% before the DA vs. 4.3% after the DA). Participants who preferred to delay screening had lower breast cancer risk than those who preferred not to delay. The information about overdiagnosis was surprising for 37.4% of participants versus 27.2% and 22.9% for information about false-positive results and screening benefits, respectively. LIMITATION: Respondent preferences may have been influenced by the then-current USPSTF guideline. CONCLUSION: There are women in their 40s who would prefer to have mammography at an older age, especially after being informed of the benefits and harms of screening. Women who wanted to delay screening were at lower breast cancer risk than women who wanted screening at their current age. Many found information about the benefits and harms of mammography surprising. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation.

PURPOSE: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet some people may react to overdiagnosis with doubt and skepticism. The present research assessed 4 related reactions to overdiagnosis: reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, and source derogation (REDS). The degree to which the concept of overdiagnosis conflicts with participants' prior beliefs and health messages (information conflict) was also assessed as a potential antecedent of REDS. We developed a scale to assess these reactions, evaluated how those reactions are related, and identified their potential implications for screening decision making. METHODS: Female participants aged 39 to 49 years read information about overdiagnosis in mammography screening and completed survey questions assessing their reactions to that information. We used a multidimensional theoretical framework to assess dimensionality and overall domain-specific internal consistency of the REDS and Information Conflict questions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed using data randomly split into a training set and test set. Correlations between REDS, screening intentions, and other outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Five-hundred twenty-five participants completed an online survey. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified that Reactance, Self Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation, and Information Conflict represent unique constructs. A reduced 20-item scale was created by selecting 4 items per construct, which showed good model fit. Reactance, Disbelief, and Source Derogation were associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making and the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant. CONCLUSIONS: REDS and Information Conflict are distinct but correlated constructs that are common reactions to overdiagnosis. Some of these reactions may have negative implications for making informed screening decisions. HIGHLIGHTS: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet when provided information about overdiagnosis, some people are skeptical.This research developed a measure that assessed different ways in which people might express skepticism about overdiagnosis (reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, source derogation) and also the perception that overdiagnosis conflicts with prior knowledge and health messages (information conflict).These different reactions are distinct but correlated and are common reactions when people learn about overdiagnosis.Reactance, disbelief, and source derogation are associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making as well as the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant.

Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information.

BACKGROUND: The promise of precision medicine could be stymied if people do not accept the legitimacy of personalized risk information. We tested 4 explanations for skepticism of personalized diabetes risk information. METHOD: We recruited participants (N = 356; Mage = 48.6 [s = 9.8], 85.1% women, 59.0% non-Hispanic white) from community locations (e.g., barbershops, churches) for a risk communication intervention. Participants received personalized information about their risk of developing diabetes and heart disease, stroke, colon cancer, and/or breast cancer (women). Then they completed survey items. We combined 2 items (recalled risk, perceived risk) to create a trichotomous risk skepticism variable (acceptance, overestimation, underestimation). Additional items assessed possible explanations for risk skepticism: 1) information evaluation skills (education, graph literacy, numeracy), 2) motivated reasoning (negative affect toward the information, spontaneous self-affirmation, information avoidance); 3) Bayesian updating (surprise), and 4) personal relevance (racial/ethnic identity). We used multinomial logistic regression for data analysis. RESULTS: Of the participants, 18% believed that their diabetes risk was lower than the information provided, 40% believed their risk was higher, and 42% accepted the information. Information evaluation skills were not supported as a risk skepticism explanation. Motivated reasoning received some support; higher diabetes risk and more negative affect toward the information were associated with risk underestimation, but spontaneous self-affirmation and information avoidance were not moderators. For Bayesian updating, more surprise was associated with overestimation. For personal relevance, belonging to a marginalized racial/ethnic group was associated with underestimation. CONCLUSION: There are likely multiple cognitive, affective, and motivational explanations for risk skepticism. Understanding these explanations and developing interventions that address them will increase the effectiveness of precision medicine and facilitate its widespread implementation.

Danish Women Want to Participate in a Hypothetical Breast Cancer Screening with Harms and No Reduction in Mortality: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Informed decision making is recommended in breast cancer screening. Decision aids with balanced information on harms and benefits are recommended to support informed decision making. However, informed screening decision making may be challenged by overly positive attitudes toward cancer screening. We hypothesized that a substantial proportion of Danish women would want to participate in screening regardless of the presented information. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of Danish women wanting to participate in a hypothetical breast cancer screening offering no reduction in breast cancer mortality but potential harms related to unnecessary treatment. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, we invited a random sample of 751 women in the nonscreening population aged 44 to 49 y in the Central Denmark Region to an online questionnaire using the official digital mailbox system. The questionnaire included a description of a hypothetical screening and questions about thoughts on breast cancer, health literacy, and questions on the assessment of the hypothetical screening including intended participation, understanding, and belief in information. Data were linked to register data on sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: In total, 43.0% (323/751) responded to the questionnaire. Of these, 247 (82.3% [95% confidence interval: 77.5-86.5]) wanted to participate in the hypothetical breast cancer screening (participation group). More than two-thirds in both the participation group and nonparticipation group seemed to understand the presented information. Half of the women who understood the information disbelieved it. CONCLUSIONS: Exceeding our expectations, a majority of women wanted to participate in a hypothetical screening with potential harms but no reduction in breast cancer mortality. A large proportion understood but disbelieved the screening information. This could indicate that Danish women make their screening decisions based on beliefs rather than presented screening information. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04509063). HIGHLIGHTS: The majority of Danish women wanted to participate in a hypothetical breast cancer screening with potential harms related to unnecessary treatment but no reduction in mortality.A large proportion of women understood but disbelieved the hypothetical screening information.Informed decision making may be challenging when women disbelieve the information they receive.Enthusiasm for cancer screening and potential disbelief in information are important factors when developing and improving screening information and invitation.

Operating on Anxiety: Negative Affect toward Breast Cancer and Choosing Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM)-removal of the healthy breast following breast cancer diagnosis-have increased, particularly among women for whom CPM provides no survival benefit. Affective (i.e., emotional) decision making is often blamed for this increase. We studied whether greater negative breast cancer affect could motivate uptake of CPM through increased cancer risk perceptions and biased treatment evaluations. METHODS: We randomly assigned healthy women with average breast-cancer risk (N = 1030; Mage = 44.14, SD = 9.23 y) to 1 of 3 affect conditions (negative v. neutral v. positive narrative manipulation) in a hypothetical online experiment in which they were asked to imagine being diagnosed with cancer in one breast. We assessed 1) treatment choice, 2) affect toward CPM, and 3) perceived risk of future breast cancer in each breast (cancer affected and healthy) following lumpectomy, single mastectomy, and CPM. RESULTS: The manipulation caused women in the negative and neutral narrative conditions (26.9% and 26.4%, respectively) to choose CPM more compared with the positive narrative condition (19.1%). Across conditions, women's CPM affect did not differ. However, exploratory analyses addressing a possible association of affect toward cancer-related targets suggested that women in the negative narrative condition may have felt more positively toward CPM than women in the positive narrative condition. The manipulation did not have significant effects on breast cancer risk perceptions. LIMITATIONS: The manipulation of affect had a small effect size, possibly due to the hypothetical nature of this study and/or strong a priori knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer and its treatment options. CONCLUSION: Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased choice of CPM over other surgical options and might have motivated more positive affective evaluations of CPM. HIGHLIGHTS: This study used narratives to elicit different levels of negative integral affect toward breast cancer to investigate the effects of affect on breast cancer treatment choices.Increased negative affect toward breast cancer increased the choice of double mastectomy over lumpectomy and single mastectomy to treat a hypothetical, early-stage cancer.The narrative manipulation of negative affect toward breast cancer did not change the perceived risks of future cancer following any of the surgical interventions.Negative affect toward breast cancer may have biased affective evaluations of double mastectomy.

Clinician Attitudes and Beliefs Associated with More Aggressive Diagnostic Testing.

BACKGROUND: Variation in clinicians' diagnostic test utilization is incompletely explained by demographics and likely relates to cognitive characteristics. We explored clinician factors associated with diagnostic test utilization. METHODS: We used a self-administered survey of attitudes, cognitive characteristics, and reported likelihood of test ordering in common scenarios; frequency of lipid and liver testing in patients on statin therapy. Participants were 552 primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants from practices in 8 US states across 3 regions, from June 1, 2018 to November 26, 2019. We measured Testing Likelihood Score: the mean of 4 responses to testing frequency and self-reported testing frequency in patients on statins. RESULTS: Respondents were 52.4% residents, 36.6% attendings, and 11.0% nurse practitioners/physician assistants; most were white (53.6%) or Asian (25.5%). Median age was 32 years; 53.1% were female. Participants reported ordering tests for a median of 20% (stress tests) to 90% (mammograms) of patients; Testing Likelihood Scores varied widely (median 54%, interquartile range 43%-69%). Higher scores were associated with geography, training type, low numeracy, high malpractice fear, high medical maximizer score, high stress from uncertainty, high concern about bad outcomes, and low acknowledgment of medical uncertainty. More frequent testing of lipids and liver tests was associated with low numeracy, high medical maximizer score, high malpractice fear, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician variation in testing was common, with more aggressive testing consistently associated with low numeracy, being a medical maximizer, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. Efforts to reduce undue variations in testing should consider clinician cognitive drivers.

The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge.

PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force has changed their screening recommendations, encouraging informed patient choice and shared decision making as a result of emerging evidence. We aimed to compare the impact of a didactic intervention, a descriptive harms intervention, a narrative intervention, and a new risk communication strategy titled Aiding Risk Information learning through Simulated Experience (ARISE) on preferences for a hypothetical beneficial cancer screening test (one that reduces the chance of cancer death or extends life) versus a hypothetical screening test with no proven physical benefits. METHOD: A total of 3386 men and women aged 40 to 70 completed an online survey about prostate or breast cancer screening. Participants were randomly assigned to either an unbeneficial test condition (0 lives saved due to screening) or a beneficial test condition (1 life saved due to screening). Participants then reviewed 4 informational interventions about either breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer screening. First, participants were provided didactic information alongside an explicit recommendation. This was followed by a descriptive harms intervention in which the possible harms of overdetection were explained. Participants then viewed 2 additional interventions: a narrative and ARISE (an intervention in which participants learned about probabilities by viewing simulated outcomes). The order of these last 2 interventions was randomized. Preference for being screened with the test and knowledge about the test were measured. RESULTS: With each successive intervention, preferences for screening tests decreased an equivalent amount for both a beneficial and unbeneficial test. Knowledge about the screening tests was largely unimpacted by the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting detailed risk and benefit information, narratives, and ARISE reduced preferences for screening regardless of the net public benefit of screening.

Cancer Misinformation and Harmful Information on Facebook and Other Social Media: A Brief Report.

There are few data on the quality of cancer treatment information available on social media. Here, we quantify the accuracy of cancer treatment information on social media and its potential for harm. Two cancer experts reviewed 50 of the most popular social media articles on each of the 4 most common cancers. The proportion of misinformation and potential for harm were reported for all 200 articles and their association with the number of social media engagements using a 2-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Of 200 total articles, 32.5% (n = 65) contained misinformation and 30.5% (n = 61) contained harmful information. Among articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50 of 65) contained harmful information. The median number of engagements for articles with misinformation was greater than factual articles (median [interquartile range] = 2300 [1200-4700] vs 1600 [819-4700], P = .05). The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than safe articles (median [interquartile range] = 2300 [1400-4700] vs 1500 [810-4700], P = .007).

Preferences for More or Less Health Care and Association With Health Literacy of Men Eligible for Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in Australia.

Importance: Understanding personal factors that influence diverse responses to health care information, such as preferences for more or less health care, might be beneficial to more effective communication and better involvement in health care choices. Objective: To determine whether individuals' preferences for more or less health care are associated with informed choice and understanding of overdiagnosis in routine prostate cancer screening and to examine associations among preferences, educational status, and health literacy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included a community-based sample of men in Australia aged 45 to 60 years eligible for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, recruited via an international social research company. Survey data were collected online from June 27 to July 26, 2018. Data were analyzed in April 2020. Exposures: Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 versions of an online decision aid (full-length or abbreviated) about PSA screening and completed an online survey that included a measure of preference for more or less health care, the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS), in which higher score indicates preference for more health care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was informed choice; knowledge, attitudes, and intentions about screening for prostate cancer were also measured. Results: Of 3722 participants who began the survey, 2993 (80.4%) completed it (mean [SD] age, 52.15 [6.65] years). Stronger preferences for more heath care were observed in those without tertiary education (mean difference, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22; P < .001) and with inadequate health literacy (mean difference, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22; P < .001). After controlling for health and demographic variables, a 1-unit increase in MMS score was associated with reduced relative risk (RR) of making an informed choice (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82; P < .001) and of having adequate conceptual knowledge (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90; P < .001), correct numerical knowledge (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.97; P = .001), and correct understanding of overdiagnosis (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.90; P < .001). A 1-unit increase in MMS score was associated with a more positive attitude toward screening (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.15-1.21; P < .001) and more positive intention to screen (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.25; P < .001) after adjusting for control variables. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study examined associations between preferences for more or less health care and knowledge about overdiagnosis and informed choice among men in Australia. These results may motivate clinicians to elicit individual patient preferences to facilitate tailored discussions with patients about low-value care, such as prostate cancer screening, for which benefit is uncertain.

Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses.

Objective: Health misinformation on social media threatens public health. One question that could lend insight into how and through whom misinformation spreads is whether certain people are susceptible to many types of health misinformation, regardless of the health topic at hand. This study provided an initial answer to this question and also tested four hypotheses concerning the psychosocial attributes of people who are susceptible to health misinformation: (1) deficits in knowledge or skill, (2) preexisting attitudes, (3) trust in health care and/or science, and (4) cognitive miserliness. Method: Participants in a national U.S. survey (N = 923) rated the perceived accuracy and influence of true and false social media posts about statin medications, cancer treatment, and the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine and then responded to individual difference and demographic questions. Results: Perceived accuracy of health misinformation was strongly correlated across statins, cancer, and the HPV vaccine (rs ≥ .70), indicating that individuals who are susceptible to misinformation about one of these topics are very likely to believe misinformation about the other topics as well. Misinformation susceptibility across all three topics was most strongly predicted by lower educational attainment and health literacy, distrust in the health care system, and positive attitudes toward alternative medicine. Conclusions: A person who is susceptible to online misinformation about one health topic may be susceptible to many types of health misinformation. Individuals who were more susceptible to health misinformation had less education and health literacy, less health care trust, and more positive attitudes toward alternative medicine. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Adherence of Internet-Based Cancer Risk Assessment Tools to Best Practices in Risk Communication: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Internet-based risk assessment tools offer a potential avenue for people to learn about their cancer risk and adopt risk-reducing behaviors. However, little is known about whether internet-based risk assessment tools adhere to scientific evidence for what constitutes good risk communication strategies. Furthermore, their quality may vary from a user experience perspective. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the extent to which current best practices in risk communication have been applied to internet-based cancer risk assessment tools. METHODS: We conducted a search on August 6, 2019, to identify websites that provided personalized assessments of cancer risk or the likelihood of developing cancer. Each website (N=39) was coded according to standardized criteria and focused on 3 categories: general website characteristics, accessibility and credibility, and risk communication formats and strategies. RESULTS: Some best practices in risk communication were more frequently adhered to by websites. First, we found that undefined medical terminology was widespread, impeding comprehension for those with limited health literacy. For example, 90% (35/39) of websites included technical language that the general public may find difficult to understand, yet only 23% (9/39) indicated that medical professionals were their intended audience. Second, websites lacked sufficient information for users to determine the credibility of the risk assessment, making it difficult to judge the scientific validity of their risk. For instance, only 59% (23/39) of websites referenced the scientific model used to calculate the user's cancer risk. Third, practices known to foster unbiased risk comprehension, such as adding qualitative labels to quantitative numbers, were used by only 15% (6/39) of websites. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations in risk communication strategies used by internet-based cancer risk assessment tools were common. By observing best practices, these tools could limit confusion and cultivate understanding to help people make informed decisions and motivate people to engage in risk-reducing behaviors.

Gain-loss framing and patients' decisions: a linguistic examination of information framing in physician-patient conversations.

When discussing risks and benefits with cancer patients, physicians could focus on losses such as mortality rates and cancer recurrence or, alternatively, gains such as survival rates and curing cancer. Previous research has shown that the way health information is framed influences individuals' preferences and choices. We operationalized gain-loss framing as physicians' choice of words related to gains (cancer survival), or losses (cancer mortality). In an exploratory analysis, we investigated (a) whether physicians used gain or loss words as a function of their recommendation, (b) whether physicians' choice of words was associated with patients' treatment choices. We analyzed transcribed consultations with male patients who had intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Using an iterative process of gathering and evaluating words, we created gain- and loss-dictionaries. The loss-dictionary included words related to cancer death and cancer progression. The gain-dictionary included words related to survival and cure. Using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software, we calculated the number of words related to gains and losses in each transcript. We found that physicians who recommended immediate cancer treatment for prostate cancer (vs. active surveillance) used slightly fewer words related to losses and significantly fewer words related specifically to death from cancer. Further analysis showed that loss words were associated with the patient's choice of immediate cancer treatment. A novel method of automated text analysis showed that physicians' use of loss words was correlated with physicians' recommendations for cancer treatment versus active surveillance. Additionally, loss words in consultations were associated with patients' choice of cancer treatment.

Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success.

Cancer risk prediction models such as those published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention are a cornerstone of precision medicine and public health efforts to improve population health outcomes by tailoring preventive strategies and therapeutic treatments to the people who are most likely to benefit. However, there are several barriers to the effective translation, dissemination, and implementation of cancer risk prediction models into clinical and public health practice. In this commentary, we discuss two broad categories of barriers. Specifically, we assert that the successful use of risk-stratified cancer prevention and treatment strategies is particularly unlikely if risk prediction models are translated into risk assessment tools that (i) are difficult for the public to understand or (ii) are not structured in a way to engender the public's confidence that the results are accurate. We explain what aspects of a risk assessment tool's design and content may impede understanding and acceptance by the public. We also describe strategies for translating a cancer risk prediction model into a cancer risk assessment tool that is accessible, meaningful, and useful for the public and in clinical practice.

Racial differences in veterans' response to a standard vs. patient-centered decision aid for prostate cancer: Implications for decision making in African American and White men.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether racial differences exist in patient preferences for prostate cancer treatment after being informed about options using a patient-centered vs. a standard decision aid (DA). METHODS: This article reports secondary analyses of a large study of men diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer. Men were recruited from 4 VA Health Systems and randomized to receive a patient-centered or standard DA about prostate cancer treatment options. Data were collected at 1) baseline, 2) after reading the DA but prior to diagnosis, and 3) after receiving a cancer diagnosis and meeting with a urologist. RESULTS: White patients who received the patient-centered DA written at a 7th grade reading level were more likely to prefer active surveillance and less likely to prefer radiation compared to those who received the standard DA written at >9th grade reading level. African American patients' treatment preferences did not differ as a function of DA. CONCLUSIONS: When informed about prostate cancer treatment options through a patient-centered DA, White patients changed their treatment preferences but African American patients did not. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As DAs are increasingly being used in clinical practice, more research is needed regarding the efficacy, relevance, and receptivity of DAs for African Americans.

Role of Patient Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences in Thyroid Cancer Surveillance.

PURPOSE: To understand the effect of patient preferences on thyroid cancer surveillance intensity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, from the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries were surveyed between February 2017 and October 2018 (N = 2,632; response rate, 63%). Patient reports on health care utilization in the past year and responses to the validated Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale were linked to SEER data in the 2,183 disease-free patients. Ordered logistic regression was performed using a cumulative logit with nonproportional odds. RESULTS: Of disease-free patients, 31.6% were classified as minimizers, 42.5% as moderate maximizers, and 25.9% as strong maximizers. In the past year, 25.2%, 27.3%, and 38.5% of minimizers, moderate maximizers, and strong maximizers, respectively, had ≥ 4 doctor visits, and 18.3%, 24.9%, and 29.5%, respectively, had ≥ 2 neck ultrasounds. When controlling for age, sex, race and ethnicity, comorbidity, stage, and SEER site, strong maximizers (compared with minimizers) were significantly more likely to report ≥ 4 doctor visits (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.10-1.92), ≥ 2 neck ultrasounds (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.17-2.14), ≥ 1 radioactive iodine scan (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.19-2.50), and ≥ 1 additional imaging study (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.56-2.72). CONCLUSION: Among patients with thyroid cancer who have been declared disease free, preference for a more maximal versus minimal approach to medical care is associated with increased number of physician visits and imaging tests. Because increased surveillance does not clearly correlate with improved outcomes, poses potential risks to patients, and contributes to increased healthcare costs, stronger consideration of the role of patient preferences is necessary when framing discussions on surveillance.

A bias for action in cancer screening?

Research that has explored public enthusiasm for cancer screening has suggested that the public may be overly enthusiastic about being screened with certain tests, and this has been attributed, in part, to lack of knowledge about the risks and benefits. In this article the authors considered the possibility that some people may be enthusiastic about screening even when they are informed and also accept that the test unquestionably does not save lives. Two studies were conducted, one that involved a nationally representative U.S. sample and another that involved an online convenience sample. All participants were asked whether they would want to receive a hypothetical screening test for breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer that does not reduce the chance of cancer death or extend the length of life. Over half of participants wanted to receive the described screening test. Many people did not believe that cancer screening might not save lives, yet screening preferences were not due to disbelief alone. Results further suggested that cancer worry, reassurance, and a desire for health information explained variance in preferences for unbeneficial screening, adjusting for beliefs about screening benefits, perceptions of screening risks, family history, perceptions of cancer risk, and demographics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening.

PURPOSE: The recently developed Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS) assesses individual differences in preferences for active v. passive medical treatment. We hypothesized that men's maximizing-minimizing preferences might have relevance in the case of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, since there is considerable variability in men's preference for being screened even among men who are informed that harm is more likely than benefit. The current research examined whether MMS preferences predict how men respond to didactic information and narrative stories about PSA screening. DESIGN: US men 40+ years old ( N = 1208) participated in an online survey. Men viewed information about PSA screening in 3 phases and provided their preference for screening after each phase. Phase 1 described what PSA screening is. Phase 2 added didactic information about screening risks and benefits. Phase 3 added narrative stories; men were randomized to receive stories about 1) physical harm, 2) emotional harm, 3) overdiagnosis, or 4) all 3 stories. Participants also completed the validated MMS. RESULTS: After receiving basic information, 76.8% of men wanted PSA screening. After receiving information about risks and benefits, 54.8% wanted screening (a significant reduction, P < 0.001). Men who changed their preferences were significantly more likely to be minimizers than maximizers; most men with maximizing tendencies wanted screening after both the didactic information and narratives, whereas most men with minimizing tendencies did not want the test after receiving information. CONCLUSIONS: Men who prefer a more minimizing approach to medicine are more responsive to evidence supporting limiting or forgoing screening than men who prefer a maximizing approach.

A Randomized Study of Patient Risk Perception for Incidental Renal Findings on Diagnostic Imaging Tests.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery. RESULTS: Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale). CONCLUSION: Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.