ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2026
Why Most Australians Consider It Valuable to Find Harmless Abnormalities with Diagnostic Tests: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundIndividuals commonly want diagnostic testing even after being informed the test is clinically unbeneficial and has risks. These preferences are poorly understood but may relate to beliefs that any testing information is valuable. To explore this, we examined Australian adults' attitudes toward finding harmless abnormalities using diagnostic tests and the broader beliefs related to these attitudes.MethodsData collected via survey were analyzed using mixed methods. Free text explaining attitudes to finding harmless abnormalities were analyzed using comparative content and interpretative analyses. Associations between attitudes to finding harmless abnormalities and broader beliefs and demographics were analyzed using regression.ResultsAlmost three-fifths of 655 participants considered it valuable to identify harmless abnormalities using tests. Qualitative analyses showed this attitude was driven by beliefs that identification would provide psychological reassurance, valuable biodata, and enable monitoring and management of the harmless abnormalities. These beliefs were underpinned by a skepticism that abnormalities can ever be harmless and by a range of beliefs about the broader value of diagnostic testing. Participants with negative attitudes to identifying harmless abnormalities were concerned about resultant anxiety and unnecessary health interventions. Regression showed that positive attitudes to identifying harmless abnormalities were associated with greater confidence in doctors, lesser concerns about overtreatment, and a stronger desire to know as much about their bodies as possible as well as with several demographic variables.Conclusions and ImplicationsOur study explores why people seek diagnostic tests that they know lack obvious clinical benefits. It identifies broader beliefs and psychological factors that profoundly influence testing choices. This knowledge will help overcome the limitations of existing strategies to explain the risks of tests to patients and the public.HighlightsFindings help explain why facts showing that particular diagnostic tests are ineffective or harmful fail to dissuade many Australians from seeking those tests.Many Australians value diagnostic testing for perceived reassurance, understanding one's body, and use in medical decision making.Many are skeptical that identifying incidentalomas is harmful, and are confident they can avoid unnecessarily treating them.Messages about testing risks should focus on broader beliefs and respond to psychological factors that undermine the effect of risk/benefit information.
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.