ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
104 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Pooled it
- Does Messaging for Reducing Breast Cancer Overscreening in Older Women Have Differential Responses among Medical Minimizers and Maximizers?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Trial
- The effect of conflicting versus consistent messaging on older women's support for breast cancer screening cessation.Patient education and counseling · 2025Trial
- Effect of Messaging on Support for Breast Cancer Screening Cessation Among Older US Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening.Patient education and counseling · 2024Trial
- Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Pre-implementation adaptation of primary care cancer prevention clinical decision support in a predominantly rural healthcare system.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Trial
- Effect of information about the benefits and harms of mammography on women's decision making: The InforMa randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Increasing confidence and changing behaviors in primary care providers engaged in genetic counselling.BMC medical education · 2017Trial
- Effects of a risk-based online mammography intervention on accuracy of perceived risk and mammography intentions.Patient education and counseling · 2016Trial
- Adult Patients' Perspectives on the Benefits and Harms of Overused Screening Tests: a Qualitative Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Impact of a randomized controlled educational trial to improve physician practice behaviors around screening for inherited breast cancer.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Informed decision making among first-degree relatives of prostate cancer survivors: a pilot randomized trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2014Trial
- Screening for Barrett's esophagus: results from a population-based survey.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2014Trial
- Patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer screening: who initiates elements of informed decision making?Journal of general internal medicine · 2012Trial
- Shared Decision Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- The perceived ethical appropriateness of messaging on breast cancer screening cessation among older women.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients should understand the risks and benefits of cancer screening in order to make informed screening decisions.
objectivesTo evaluate the extent of informed decision making in patient-provider discussions for colorectal (CRC), breast (BrCa), and prostate (PCa) cancer screening.
settingNational sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing.
designCross-sectional survey conducted between November 2006 and May 2007.
participantsEnglish-speaking US adults aged 50 y and older who had discussed cancer screening with a health care provider within the previous 2 y. MEASUREMENTS: Cancer screening survey modules that asked about demographic characteristics, cancer knowledge, the importance of various sources of information, and self-reported cancer screening decision-making processes.
resultsOverall, 1082 participants completed 1 or more of the 3 cancer modules. Although participants generally considered themselves well informed about screening tests, half or more could not correctly answer even 1 open-ended knowledge question for any given module. Participants consistently overestimated risks for being diagnosed with and dying from each cancer and overestimated the positive predictive values of prostate-specific antigen tests and mammography. Providers were the most highly rated information source, usually initiated screening discussions (64%-84%), and often recommended screening (73%-90%). However, participants reported that providers elicited their screening preferences in only 31% (CRC women) to 57% (PCa) of discussions. Although more than 90% of the discussions addressed the pros of screening, only 19% (BrCa) to 30% (PCa) addressed the cons of screening. LIMITATIONS: Recall bias is possible because screening process reports were not independently validated.
conclusionsCancer screening decisions reported by patients who discussed screening with their health care providers consistently failed to meet criteria for being informed. Given the high ratings for provider information and frequent recommendations for screening, providers have important opportunities to ensure that informed decision making occurs for cancer screening decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.