Psychological Research and the Prostate-cancer Screening Controversy
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
In October of 2011, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released a draft report in which they recommended against using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test to screen for prostate cancer. We attempt to show that four factors documented by psychological research can help explain the furor that followed the release of the task force's report. These factors are the persuasive power of anecdotal (as opposed to statistical) evidence, the influence of personal experience, the improper evaluation of data, and the influence of low base rates on the efficacy of screening tests. We suggest that augmenting statistics with facts boxes or pictographs might help such committees communicate more effectively with the public and with the U.S. Congress.
The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge.
Valentine K, Wegier P, Shaffer V, Scherer L Med Decis Making. 2021; 42(3):387-397.
PMID: 34470536 PMC: 9885623. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211039743.
Bluethmann S, Wang M, Wasserman E, Chen C, Zaorsky N, Hohl R Cancer Med. 2020; 9(10):3623-3633.
PMID: 32212232 PMC: 7221418. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3003.
Cancer screening risk literacy of physicians in training: An experimental study.
Petrova D, Mas G, Navarrete G, Tello Rodriguez T, Ortiz P, Garcia-Retamero R PLoS One. 2019; 14(7):e0218821.
PMID: 31269051 PMC: 6608976. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218821.
The amplification of risk in experimental diffusion chains.
Moussaid M, Brighton H, Gaissmaier W Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(18):5631-6.
PMID: 25902519 PMC: 4426405. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1421883112.
Enthusiasm for cancer screening in Great Britain: a general population survey.
Waller J, Osborne K, Wardle J Br J Cancer. 2014; 112(3):562-6.
PMID: 25535731 PMC: 4453657. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.643.