↓ Skip to main content

Psycho-Oncology

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 13: The Barrier to Informed Choice in Cancer Screening: Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 173)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
29 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
The Barrier to Informed Choice in Cancer Screening: Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients
Chapter number 13
Book title
Psycho-Oncology
Published in
Recent results in cancer research Fortschritte der Krebsforschung Progrès dans les recherches sur le cancer, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64310-6_13
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-964309-0, 978-3-31-964310-6
Authors

Odette Wegwarth, Gerd Gigerenzer, Wegwarth, Odette, Gigerenzer, Gerd

Abstract

An efficient health care requires both informed doctors and patients. Our current healthcare system falls short on both counts. Most doctors and patients do not understand the available medical evidence. To illustrate the extent of the problem in the setting of cancer screening: In a representative sample of some 5000 women in nine European countries, 92% overestimated the reduction of breast cancer mortality by mammography by a factor of 10-200, or did not know. For a similar sample of about 5000 men with respect to PSA screening, this number was 89%. Of more than 300 US citizens who regularly attended one or more cancer screening test, more than 90% had never been informed about the biggest harms of screening-overdiagnosis and overtreatment-by their physicians. Among 160 German gynecologists, some 80% did not understand the positive predictive value of a positive mammogram, with estimates varying between 1 and 90%. In a national sample of 412 US primary care physicians, 47% mistakenly believed that if more cancers are detected by a screening test, this proves that the test saves lives, and 76% wrongly thought that if screen-detected cancers have better 5-year survival rates than cancers detected by symptoms, this would prove that the screening test saves lives. And of 20 German gynecologists, not a single one provided a woman with all information on the benefits and harms of cancer screening required in order to make an informed choice. Why is risk literacy so scarce in health care? One frequently discussed explanation assumes that people suffer from cognitive deficits that make them predictably irrational and basically hopeless at dealing with risks, so that they need to be "nudged" into healthy behavior. Yet research has demonstrated that the problem lies less in stable cognitive deficits than in how information is presented to physicians and patients. This includes biased reporting in medical journals, brochures, and the media that uses relative risks and other misleading statistics, motivated by conflicts of interest and defensive medicine that do not promote informed physicians and patients. What can be done? Every medical school should teach its students how to understand evidence in general and health statistics in particular. To cultivate informed patients, elementary and high schools should start teaching the mathematics of uncertainty-statistical thinking. Guidelines about complete and transparent reporting in journals, brochures, and the media need to be better enforced, and laws need to be changed in order to protect patients and doctors alike against the practice of defensive medicine instead of encouraging it. A critical mass of informed citizens will not resolve all healthcare problems, but it can constitute a major triggering factor for better care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 5 5%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 24%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Psychology 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 33 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2019.
All research outputs
#785,974
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Recent results in cancer research Fortschritte der Krebsforschung Progrès dans les recherches sur le cancer
#9
of 173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,835
of 444,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Recent results in cancer research Fortschritte der Krebsforschung Progrès dans les recherches sur le cancer
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.