BACKGROUND: Clinicians' perceptions of screening benefits and harms influence their recommendations, which in turn shape patients' screening decisions.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
We sought to understand clinicians' perceptions of the benefits and harms of cancer screening by comparing 2 screening tests that differ in their balance of potential benefits to harms: colonoscopy, which results in net benefit for many adults, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, which may do more harm than good.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 126 clinicians at 24 family/internal medicine practices completed surveys in which they listed and rated the magnitude of colonoscopy and PSA testing benefits and harms for a hypothetical 70-year-old male patient and then estimated the likelihood that these tests would cause harm and lengthen the life of 100 similar men in the next 10 years. We tested the hypothesis that the availability heuristic would explain the association of screening test to perceived likelihood of benefit/harm and a competing hypothesis that clinicians' gist of screening tests as good or bad would mediate this association.
RESULTS: Clinicians perceived PSA testing to have a greater likelihood of harm and a lower likelihood of lengthening life relative to colonoscopy. Consistent with our gist hypothesis, these associations were mediated by clinicians' gist of screening (balance of perceived benefits to perceived harms).
LIMITATIONS: Generalizability beyond academic clinicians remains to be established.
CONCLUSIONS: Targeting clinicians' gist of screening, for example through graphical displays that allow clinicians to make gist-based relative magnitude comparisons, may influence their risk perception and possibly reduce over-recommendation of screening.
Elstad EA, Sutkowi-Hemstreet A, Sheridan SL, Vu M, Harris R, Reyna VF, Rini C, Earp JA, Brewer NT. Are you the author?
Department of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Cecil B. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Health Care and Prevention Program, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Reference: Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan 30. pii: 0272989X15569780.