Cancer screening campaigns--getting past uninformative persuasion.

  title={Cancer screening campaigns--getting past uninformative persuasion.},
  author={Steven Woloshin and Lisa M. Schwartz and William C Black and Barnett S. Kramer},
  journal={The New England journal of medicine},
  volume={367 18},
Public health campaigns have long used powerful tools of persuasion — including fear, guilt, and a sense of personal responsibility — to convince people to get screened for cancer. It's now time to get past pure persuasion and move toward informed decision making. 
Breast Cancer Screening
Better decision making in preventive health screening: Balancing benefits and harms.
This study highlights the need to understand more fully the rationale behind the continued use of these screenings, as well as the barriers to access, and the benefits and challenges of these screening practices.
Decision-making about mammographic screening: pursuing informed choice
relevant research is summarized to identify theoretical and practical aspects of improving communication and decision-making about breast cancer screening, and discuss future implications.
Stymied by a wealth of health information: How viewing conflicting information online diminishes efficacy
Support is found for the notion that exposure to conflicting information decreases self-efficacy and response efficacy, potentially discouraging the likelihood of behavior change that could prevent cancer.
Effect of different communication strategies about stopping cancer screening on screening intention and cancer anxiety: a randomised online trial of older adults in Australia
Older adults may reduce their screening intention without reporting increased cancer anxiety when clinicians use a more confronting strategy communicating they may not live long enough to benefit and add an explicit explanation why the recommendation has changed.
To screen or not to screen: What factors influence complex screening decisions?
Results showed that comprehension and perceptions of benefits are central to decisions; however, lay perceptions of harms along the screening cascade require further study.
Why cancer screening has never been shown to “save lives”—and what we can do about it
Vinay Prasad and colleagues argue that reductions in overall mortality should be the benchmark and call for higher standards of evidence for cancer screening.
Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.
  • B. Robra
  • Medicine, Political Science
    Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer
  • 2021
Ethical aspects of establishing the case for cancer screening, building a service programme, monitoring its operation, improving its quality and integrating it with medical progress are considered.


The Breast Cancer Wars
United States seems to have a predilection for declaring "war" on its internal problems, be they poverty, drugs, or cancer. In the latter part of the past century particularly, military metaphors
Using a Drug Facts Box to Communicate Drug Benefits and Harms Two Randomized Trials
These randomized trials tested whether adding a drug facts box to consumer prescription advertisements improved consumer knowledge and judgment and helped consumers choose the superior drug.
Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer.
The incidence of breast and prostate cancers increased after the introduction of screening but has never returned to prescreening levels, and the increase in the relative fraction of early stage cancers has increased.
Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?
Clinicians' views of drug therapies are affected by the common use of relative risk reductions in both trial reports and advertisements, by end-point emphasis, and, above all, by underuse of summary measures that relate treatment burden to therapeutic yields in a clinically relevant manner.
Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.
Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer, as compared with the radiography group, and the rate of death from any cause was reduced.