Differential appraisal of age thresholds for mammographic screening in Holland and Switzerland

References

• Worldwide Breast Cancer. Breast cancer statistics worldwide [Internet]. 2011 Dec. Available from: http://www.worldwidebreastcancer.com/learn/breast-cancer-statistics-worldwide/.
   Google Scholar
• Nexcura. Risk factors and lifestyle [Internet]. 2011 Dec. Available from: http://www.cancerfacts.com/GeneralContent/Breast/Gen_WhoIsAtRisk.asp?CB=10.
   Google Scholar
• Globocan. Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2008 [Internet]. 2011 Dec. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/.
   Google Scholar
• LETB-Landelijke Evaluatie Team van bevolkingsonderzoek naar Borstkanker [National evaluation team of population-based breast cancer screening program]. Tussenrapportage. Rotterdam: Erasmus Medisch Centrum; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Bouchardy C, Lutz JM, Kühni C. Cancer in Switzerland: situation and development from 1983 to 2007. Neuchâtel: Federal Statistical Office; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Oldenburg H, Vrancken MJ, Bohemen J. Het borstkankerboek. Amsterdam: Thoeris; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Otten JDM, Broeders MJM, Fracheboud J, Otto SJ, de Koning HJ, Verbeek ALM. Impressive time-related influence of the Dutch screening programme on breast cancer incidence and mortality, 1975–2006. Int J Cancer 2008;123(8):1929–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vainio H, Bianchini F. Breast cancer screening. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet] 2006CD001877. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001877/pdf_fs.html.
   Google Scholar
• Gøtzsche PC, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Brodersen J, Jørgensen KJ. Breast screening: the facts – or maybe not. Brit Med J 2009;338:b86. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CWN, Broeders MJM, Boer R, Hendriks JHCL. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 2003;361(9367):1411–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ab 2013 Brustkrebs-Vorsorge im ganzen Kanton Bern. Der Bund. 2011 Aug 18. Available from: http://www.derbund.ch/bern/Ab-2013-BrustkrebsVorsorge-im-ganzen-Kanton-Bern/story/28930374.
   Google Scholar
• Carestream. Progress of breast cancer screening in Switzerland 2009. 2011 Dec. Available from: http://carestream.com/Specials/tradeshow/mammoScreening/pdf/CH-english.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Swiss Cancer League. United against breast cancer: the most important questions and answers. 2011 Dec. Available from: http://assets.getunik1.vm02.interway.ch/downloads/6408.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz PJ, Meuffels B. Justifying age thresholds for mammographic screening: an application of pragma-dialectical argumentation theory. Health Commun 2011;27(2):167–78. DOI:10.1080/10410236.2011.571758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz PJ, Meuffels B. ‘It is about our body, our own body!’ On the difficulty of telling Dutch women under 50 that mammography is not for them. J Argumentation Context 2012;1(1):130–42.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz PJ, Meuffels B. Breast cancer screening: a case in point. In: Feteris E, Garssen B, Henkemans FS, (eds.) Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of Frans H. Van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2011. p. 117–33.
   Google Scholar
• Meuffels B, Schulz PJ. Baas in eigen borst. Waarom gezondheidsvoorlichting (soms) faalt. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing. 2011;32(2):119–47.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R. Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R. A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Jackson S, Jacobs S. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz PJ, Meuffels B. Knowledge, information sources and awareness regarding breast cancer screening: a comparative study in Lugano/Switzerland and Amsterdam/Holland. Stud Commun Sci 2009;9:249–64.
   Google Scholar
• Kievits F, Adriaanse MT. Borstkankermaand vergroot naast kennis ook angst. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 2007;151(45):2536–7.
   Google Scholar
• Choi J, Yang M, Chang JCJ. Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon: the role of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and perceived opinion climate. Commun Res 2009;36:54–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherif M, Hovland CI. Social judgment: assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Oxford: Yale University Press; 1961.
   Google Scholar
• Rieke RD, Sillars MO. Argumentation and the decision making process. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Harper Collins; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Baesler EJ, Burgoon JK. The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Commun Res 1994;21(5):582–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen M, Preiss RWW. Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Commun Res Rep 1997;14(2):125–31.
   Google Scholar
• O'Keefe DJ. Persuasion: theory and research. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Bing H, Fink EL. How do statistical and narrative evidence affect persuasion? The role of evidentiary features. Argumentation Advocacy 2012;49(1):39–58.
   Google Scholar
• Kim HJ. The effects of gender and gain versus loss frame on processing breast cancer screening messages. Commun Res 2012;39(3):385–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clare GP, Huddleston P. Getting the message: framing food recall messages to increase consumer protection motivations. J Commun Healthc 2014;7(1):57–70.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211(4481):453–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salovey P, Schneider TR, Apanovitch AM. Message framing in the prevention and early detection of illness. In: Dillard JP, Pfau M, (eds.) The persuasion handbook: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002. p. 391–406.
   Google Scholar
• Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ Behav Hum 1998;76(2):149–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, Rothman AJ, Moyer A, Beauvais J, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol. 1995;14(2):178–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: a meta-analytic review. J Health Commun 2007;12(7):623–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brehm JW. A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press; 1966.
   Google Scholar
• Brehm JW. Responses to loss of freedom: a theory of psychological reactance. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press; 1972.
   Google Scholar
• Wortman CB, Brehm JW. Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: an integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In: Berkowitz L, (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press; 1975. vol. 8, p. 277–336.
   Google Scholar