Abstract
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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):2071–2077
Bramwell R, West H, Salmon P (2006) Health professionals’ and service users’ interpretation of screening test results: experimental study. Br Med J 333:284–286
Brenner JT, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284
Casscells W, Schoenberger A, Grayboys T (1978) Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. N Engl J Med 299:999–1000
Dobbs M (2007, October 30) Rudy wrong on cancer survival chances. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from http://blog.washingtonpost.com/
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 249–267
Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ (1995) Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. Br Med J 311(21 October):1056–1059
Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM (1992) Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 92:121–124
Ghosh AK, Ghosh K (2005) Translating evidence-based information into effective risk communication: current challenges and opportunities. J Lab Clin Med 145:171–180
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 8:53–96
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, Cambridge
Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U (1995) How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev 102:684–704
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):1216–1220
Gigerenzer G, Wegwarth O, Feufel M (2010) Misleading communication of risk: editors should enforce transaprent reporting in abstracts. Br Med J 341:791–792
Gøtzsche P, Nielsen M (2006) Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev, 4(CD001877)
Gøtzsche P, Nielsen M (2011) Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1(CD001877)
Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G (1998) Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med 73:538–540
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 15:152–157
Kaiser T, Ewers H, Waltering A, Beckwermert D, Jennen C, Sawicki PT (2004) Sind die Aussagen medizinischer Werbeprospekte korrekt? Arznei-Telegramm 35:21–23
Labarge AS, McCaffrey RJ, Brown TA (2003) Neuropsychologists’ ability to determine the predictive value of diagnostic tests. Clin Neuropsychol 18:165–175
Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM (1993) The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Int Med 8:543–548
Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B (1992) Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Int Med 117:916–921
Nuovo J, Melnikow J, Chang D (2002) Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 287:2813–2814
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 359:909–919
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 3:85–87
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):1320–1328
Schüssler B (2005) Im Dialog: Ist Risiko überhaupt kommunizierbar, Herr Prof. Gigerenzer? Frauenheilkunde Aktuell 14:25–31
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 333:1248–1252
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG (1997) The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Int Med 127:966–972
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ, Welch HG (2004) Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. J Am Med Assoc 291:71–78
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 45:523–528
Sirovich B, Welch H (2004) Cervical cancer screening among women without a cervix. J Am Med Assoc 291:2990–2993
Steurer J, Held U, Schmidt M, Gigerenzer G, Tag B, Bachmann LM. (2009). Legal concerns trigger PSA testing. J Eval Clin Prac 15:390–392
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven
Wegwarth O, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G (2011) Deceiving numbers: survival rates and their impact on doctors’ risk communication. Med Decis Making 31(3):386–394
Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G (2011) “There is nothing to worry about”: Gynecologists’ counseling on mammography. Patient Educ Couns 84(2011):251–256
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. 67–102
Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G (2014) Improving evidence-based practices through health literacy—in reply. JAMA Int Med 174(8):1413–1414
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):340–349
Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2000) Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer? J Am Med Assoc 283(22):2975–2978
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM (2012) How a charity oversells mammography. BMJ 345:e5132
Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE (2002) General practitioners’ self rating of skills in evidence based medicine: a validation study. BMJ 324:950–951
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wegwarth, O., Gigerenzer, G. (2018). The Barrier to Informed Choice in Cancer Screening: Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients. In: Goerling, U., Mehnert, A. (eds) Psycho-Oncology. Recent Results in Cancer Research, vol 210. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64310-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64310-6_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64309-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64310-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)