Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39585772›Full record

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.

Laura D Scherer, Carmen L Lewis, Joseph N Cappella, Jolyn Hersch, Kirsten McCaffery, Channing Tate, Heather L Smyth, Bridget Mosley, Brad Morse, Marilyn M Schapira

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05376241 phase2completednot on this map

Understanding Affective Processing of Scientific Evidence to Promote Informed Choice for Breast Cancer Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Colorado, DenverRan2022 to 2022Enrolled637ConditionsBreast CancerArmsDecision aid
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Laura D SchererSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado.
Carmen L LewisSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado.
Joseph N CappellaAnnenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.
Jolyn HerschSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney.
Kirsten McCafferySchool of Public Health, University of Sydney.
Channing TateSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado.
Heather L SmythSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado.
Bridget MosleySchool of Medicine, University of Colorado.
Brad MorseSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado.
Marilyn M SchapiraPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.

Funding

Understanding affective processing of scientific evidence to promote informed choice for breast cancer screeningR37CA254926 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Laura D. Scherer · 2021 to 2026
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA254926
6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsCommunicationEarly Detection of CancerHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMammographyMass ScreeningAdultFemaleHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID39585772
PMCPMC12061567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.