ArticleGerman medical science : GMS e-journal2007
Selective information seeking: can consumers' avoidance of evidence-based information on colorectal cancer screening be explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance?
Article in German medical science : GMS e-journal, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Using an informed consent in mammography screening: a randomized trial.Cancer medicine · 2015Trial
- Effect of evidence based risk information on "informed choice" in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Trial
- Preconceptions influence women's perceptions of information on breast cancer screening: a qualitative study.BMC research notes · 2015Article
- Scientific Versus Experiential Evidence: Discourse Analysis of the Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency Debate in a Multiple Sclerosis Forum.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Article
- Understanding, comprehensibility and acceptance of an evidence-based consumer information brochure on fall prevention in old age: a focus group study.BMC geriatrics · 2011Article
- Reasons for No Colonoscopy After an Unfavorable Screening Result in Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Nationwide Questionnaire.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based patient information (EBPI) is a prerequisite for informed decision-making. However, presentation of EBPI may lead to irrational reactions causing avoidance, minimisation and devaluation of the information.
objectiveTo explore whether the theory of cognitive dissonance is applicable to medical decision-making and useful to explain these phenomena. SETTING AND
participants261 volunteers from Hamburg (157 women), >or=50 years old without diagnosis of colorectal cancer. DESIGN AND VARIABLES: Within an experiment we simulated information seeking on colorectal cancer screening. Consumers' attitudes towards screening were surveyed using a rating scale from -5 (participate in no way) to +5 (participate unconditionally) (independent variable). Using a cover story, participants were asked to sort 5 article headlines according to their reading preferences. The headlines simulated the pro to contra variety of contents to be found in print media about colorectal cancer screening. The dependent variable was the sequence of article headlines.
resultsParticipants were very much in favour of screening with scores for faecal occult blood test of 4.0 (0.1) and for colonoscopy 3.3 (0.1). According to our hypothesis we found statistically significant positive correlations between the stimuli in favour of screening and attitudes and significant negative correlations between the stimuli against screening and attitudes.
conclusionThe theory of cognitive dissonance is applicable to medical decision-making. It may explain some phenomena of irrational reactions to evidence-based patient information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19675713PMC2703235W103067101What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.