ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Patients' expectations of screening and preventive treatments.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Current practice and timing of rapid point-of-care testing for acute respiratory tract infections in outpatient care: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Reducing the environmental impact of medications and improving patient outcomes using the ECO-Rx framework.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Review
- Article
- Evaluation of the German living guideline "Protection against the Overuse and Underuse of Health Care" - an online survey among German GPs.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- [Health Professionals expectations' about the benefit of regular Primary Care interventions].Atencion primaria · 2022Article
- Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Article
- Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women.JAMA oncology · 2021Article
- Expectations about check-up examinations among Swiss residents: A nationwide population-based cross-sectional survey.PloS one · 2021Article
- The physical examination: a survey of patient preferences and expectations during primary care visits.Postgraduate medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Quaternary prevention: reviewing the concept.The European journal of general practice · 2018Article
- Patient-rated importance of key information on screening colonoscopy in Germany: a survey of statutory health insurance members.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Lay Beliefs About the Accuracy and Value of Cancer Screening.American journal of preventive medicine · 2018Article
- A Psychological Perspective on Factors Predicting Prophylactic Salpingo-Oophorectomy in a Sample of Italian Women from the General Population. Results from a Hypothetical Study in the Context of BRCA Mutations.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Can you un-ring the bell? A qualitative study of how affect influences cancer screening decisions.BMC cancer · 2017Article
- Impact of numeracy on understanding of prostate cancer risk reduction in PSA screening.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAn informed decision to accept a health care intervention requires an understanding of its likely benefit. This study assessed participants' estimates of the benefit, as well as minimum acceptable benefit, of screening for breast and bowel cancer and medication to prevent hip fracture and cardiovascular disease.
methodsThree general practitioners sent questionnaires to all registered patients aged 50 to 70 years. Patients agreeing to participate in the study were asked to estimate the number of events (fractures or deaths) prevented in a group of 5,000 patients undergoing each intervention over a period of 10 years, and to indicate the minimum number of events avoided by the intervention that they considered justified its use. The proportions of participants that overestimated each intervention's benefit were calculated, and univariate and multivariable analyses of predictors of response were performed.
resultsThe participation rate was 36%: 977 patients were invited to participate in the study, and 354 returned a completed questionnaire. Participants overestimated the degree of benefit conferred by all interventions: 90% of participants overestimated the effect of breast cancer screening, 94% overestimated the effect of bowel cancer screening, 82% overestimated the effect of hip fracture preventive medication, and 69% overestimated the effect of preventive medication for cardiovascular disease. Estimates of minimum acceptable benefit were more conservative, but other than for cardiovascular disease mortality prevention, most respondents indicated a minimum benefit greater than these interventions achieve. A lower level of education was associated with higher estimates of minimum acceptable benefit for all interventions.
conclusionPatients overestimated the risk reduction achieved with 4 examples of screening and preventive medications. A lower level of education was associated with higher minimum benefit to justify intervention use. This tendency to overestimate benefits may affect patients' decisions to use such interventions, and practitioners should be aware of this tendency when discussing these interventions with patients.
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.