The Barrier to Informed Choice in Cancer Screening: Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients

  • Odette WegwarthEmail author
  • Gerd Gigerenzer
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 210)


An efficient health care requires both informed doctors and patients. Our current healthcare system falls short on both counts. Most doctors and patients do not understand the available medical evidence. To illustrate the extent of the problem in the setting of cancer screening: In a representative sample of some 5000 women in nine European countries, 92% overestimated the reduction of breast cancer mortality by mammography by a factor of 10–200, or did not know. For a similar sample of about 5000 men with respect to PSA screening, this number was 89%. Of more than 300 US citizens who regularly attended one or more cancer screening test, more than 90% had never been informed about the biggest harms of screening—overdiagnosis and overtreatment—by their physicians. Among 160 German gynecologists, some 80% did not understand the positive predictive value of a positive mammogram, with estimates varying between 1 and 90%. In a national sample of 412 US primary care physicians, 47% mistakenly believed that if more cancers are detected by a screening test, this proves that the test saves lives, and 76% wrongly thought that if screen-detected cancers have better 5-year survival rates than cancers detected by symptoms, this would prove that the screening test saves lives. And of 20 German gynecologists, not a single one provided a woman with all information on the benefits and harms of cancer screening required in order to make an informed choice. Why is risk literacy so scarce in health care? One frequently discussed explanation assumes that people suffer from cognitive deficits that make them predictably irrational and basically hopeless at dealing with risks, so that they need to be “nudged” into healthy behavior. Yet research has demonstrated that the problem lies less in stable cognitive deficits than in how information is presented to physicians and patients. This includes biased reporting in medical journals, brochures, and the media that uses relative risks and other misleading statistics, motivated by conflicts of interest and defensive medicine that do not promote informed physicians and patients. What can be done? Every medical school should teach its students how to understand evidence in general and health statistics in particular. To cultivate informed patients, elementary and high schools should start teaching the mathematics of uncertainty—statistical thinking. Guidelines about complete and transparent reporting in journals, brochures, and the media need to be better enforced, and laws need to be changed in order to protect patients and doctors alike against the practice of defensive medicine instead of encouraging it. A critical mass of informed citizens will not resolve all healthcare problems, but it can constitute a major triggering factor for better care.


Informed decision-making Cancer screening Medical risk illiteracy Absolute risk Relative risk 5-year survival Medical risk communication 


  1. Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, Land C (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. JAMA Int Med 169(22):2071–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bramwell R, West H, Salmon P (2006) Health professionals’ and service users’ interpretation of screening test results: experimental study. Br Med J 333:284–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenner JT, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Casscells W, Schoenberger A, Grayboys T (1978) Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. N Engl J Med 299:999–1000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobbs M (2007, October 30) Rudy wrong on cancer survival chances. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from
  6. Eddy DM (1982) Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: problems and opportunities. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ (1995) Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. Br Med J 311(21 October):1056–1059Google Scholar
  8. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM (1992) Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 92:121–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghosh AK, Ghosh K (2005) Translating evidence-based information into effective risk communication: current challenges and opportunities. J Lab Clin Med 145:171–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2007) Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Publ Interest 8:53–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gigerenzer G, Gray JAM (2011) Launching the century of the patient. In Gigerenzer G, Gray JAM (eds) Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: envisioning healthcare 2020. Strüngmann Forum Report. (vol 6, pp 1–19). MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev 102:684–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R (2009) Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(17):1216–1220CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer G, Wegwarth O, Feufel M (2010) Misleading communication of risk: editors should enforce transaprent reporting in abstracts. Br Med J 341:791–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gøtzsche P, Nielsen M (2006) Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev, 4(CD001877)Google Scholar
  16. Gøtzsche P, Nielsen M (2011) Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1(CD001877)Google Scholar
  17. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G (1998) Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med 73:538–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hux J, Naylor C (1995) Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patient’s acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making 15:152–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaiser T, Ewers H, Waltering A, Beckwermert D, Jennen C, Sawicki PT (2004) Sind die Aussagen medizinischer Werbeprospekte korrekt? Arznei-Telegramm 35:21–23Google Scholar
  20. Labarge AS, McCaffrey RJ, Brown TA (2003) Neuropsychologists’ ability to determine the predictive value of diagnostic tests. Clin Neuropsychol 18:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM (1993) The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Int Med 8:543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B (1992) Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Int Med 117:916–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Nuovo J, Melnikow J, Chang D (2002) Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 287:2813–2814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nyström L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjöld B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. The Lancet 359:909–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nyström L, Larsson LG, Wall S, Rutqvist LE, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Tabár L (1996) An overview of the Swedish randomised mammography trials: total mortality pattern and the representativity of the study cohorts. J Med Screening 3:85–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Auvinen A (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328Google Scholar
  27. Schüssler B (2005) Im Dialog: Ist Risiko überhaupt kommunizierbar, Herr Prof. Gigerenzer? Frauenheilkunde Aktuell 14:25–31Google Scholar
  28. Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Dvorin EL, Welch H (2006) Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks. Br Med J 333:1248–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG (1997) The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Int Med 127:966–972CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ, Welch HG (2004) Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. J Am Med Assoc 291:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sedrakyan A, Shih C (2007) Improving depiction of benefits and harms: analyses of studies of well-known therapeutics and review of high-impact medical journals. Med Care 45:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sirovich B, Welch H (2004) Cervical cancer screening among women without a cervix. J Am Med Assoc 291:2990–2993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steurer J, Held U, Schmidt M, Gigerenzer G, Tag B, Bachmann LM. (2009). Legal concerns trigger PSA testing. J Eval Clin Prac 15:390–392Google Scholar
  34. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  35. Wegwarth O, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G (2011) Deceiving numbers: survival rates and their impact on doctors’ risk communication. Med Decis Making 31(3):386–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G (2011) “There is nothing to worry about”: Gynecologists’ counseling on mammography. Patient Educ Couns 84(2011):251–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G (2013) Trust-your-doctor: a simple heuristic in need of a proper social environment. In: Hertwig R, Hoffrage U, The ABC Research Group (eds) Simple heuristics in a social world. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 67–102Google Scholar
  38. Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G (2014) Improving evidence-based practices through health literacy—in reply. JAMA Int Med 174(8):1413–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G (2012) Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the U.S. Ann Int Med (156):340–349Google Scholar
  40. Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2000) Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer? J Am Med Assoc 283(22):2975–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM (2012) How a charity oversells mammography. BMJ 345:e5132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE (2002) General practitioners’ self rating of skills in evidence based medicine: a validation study. BMJ 324:950–951CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations