ArticleHealth psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association2025
Skeptical reactions to breast cancer screening benefits and harms: Antecedents, consequences, and implications for screening communication.
Article in Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05376241 (Understanding Affective Processing of Scientific Evidence to Promote Informed Choice for Breast Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Understanding Affective Processing of Scientific Evidence to Promote Informed Choice for Breast Cancer Screening
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWhen people receive information about the benefits and harms of mammography screening, they do not always accept it at face value and instead express skepticism. The purpose of this research was to identify the psychological drivers of this skepticism. Two theory-driven hypotheses were considered: One hypothesis proposes that skeptical reactions reflect a psychological defense against information that is emotionally aversive. Another proposes that skeptical reactions reflect a normative probabilistic inference that information that conflicts with prior beliefs is unlikely to be true. This work also identified the potential consequences of skepticism for people's screening preferences.
methodA nationally representative sample of female participants ages 39-49 received information about the benefits and harms of mammography screening. Skepticism toward information about screening benefits and harms was measured, as well as hypothesis-relevant predictors of that skepticism. Participants' preferred age to have regular mammograms was also assessed.
resultsThe results did not support the hypothesis that skepticism reflects an emotional defense. Instead, skepticism was associated with experiencing the information as conflicting with beliefs and past screening messages. Expressing more skepticism toward screening harms was associated with preferring to start screening at a younger age.
conclusionsThese data suggest that people express skepticism toward mammography evidence not because it is aversive information, but instead because it conflicts with other things they believe and have been told. Consistent, coordinated messages from health experts about mammography evidence may therefore help to reduce skepticism, and help promote an informed patient population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.