ArticlePloS one2019
Cancer screening risk literacy of physicians in training: An experimental study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- It depends on where you stand on screening: health professionals' awareness, perspectives, and approaches to overdiagnosis in cancer screening - a qualitative interview study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Numerate people are less likely to be biased by regular science reporting: the critical roles of scientific reasoning and causal misunderstanding.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Beyond statistical significance: when statistically significant post operative endodontic procedures might reduce pain affecting a minority of patients seen clinically.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Article
- Assessing statistical literacy in medical students and doctors: a single-centre, cross-sectional survey in South Korea.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Assessing Risk Literacy Skills: Enhancing Healthcare Management among University Students.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Program: Views of Spanish Health Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Teaching clinicians shared decision making and risk communication online: an evaluation study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2021Article
- Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Preventive health care and the media.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020Article
- Article
- How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019Article
- Teaching Medical Students to Communicate Risks Like Military Intelligence Analysts.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated what factors may foster or hinder physicians' cancer screening risk literacy-specifically the ability to understand evidence regarding screening effectiveness and make evidence-based recommendations to patients. In an experiment, physicians in training (interns and residents) read statistical information about outcomes from screening for cancer, and had to decide whether to recommend it to a patient. We manipulated the effectiveness of the screening (effective vs. ineffective at reducing mortality) and the demand of the patient to get screened (demand vs. no demand). We assessed participants' comprehension of the presented evidence and recommendation to the patient, as well as a-priori screening beliefs (e.g., that screening is always a good choice), numeracy, science literacy, knowledge of screening statistics, statistical education, and demographics. Stronger positive a-priori screening beliefs, lower knowledge of screening statistics, and lower numeracy were related to worse comprehension of the evidence. Physicians recommended against the ineffective screening but only if they showed good comprehension of the evidence. Physicians' recommendations were further based on the perceived benefits from screening but not on perceived harms, nor the patient's demands. The current study demonstrates that comprehension of cancer screening statistics and the ability to infer the potential benefits for patients are essential for evidence-based recommendations. However, strong beliefs in favor of screening fostered by promotion campaigns may influence how physicians evaluate evidence about specific screenings. Fostering physician numeracy skills could help counteract such biases and provide evidence-based recommendations to 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.