What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women

References

• Anttila A, Ronco G, Clifford G, et al. Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(5):935–941. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.660206915280916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linos A, Riza E. Comparisons of cervical cancer screening programmes in the European Union. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(17):2260–2265.11072217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tota J, Ramana–Kumar A, El-Khatib Z, Franco E. The road ahead for cervical cancer prevention and control. Cur Oncol. 2014;21(2):e255. doi:10.3747/co.21.1720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ. 1999;318(7188):904. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7188.90410102852
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C, Ward EM. Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19(8):1893–1907. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-043720647400
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briss P, Rimer B, Reilley B, et al. Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):67–80.14700715
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forbes C, Jepson R, Martin-Hirsch P. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(3):CD002834..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G. Towards a paradigm shift in cancer screening: informed citizens instead of greater participation. BMJ. 2015;350:h2175. doi:10.1136/bmj.h217525943239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegwarth O, Kurzenhäuser-Carstens S, Gigerenzer G. Overcoming the knowledge–behavior gap: the effect of evidence-based HPV vaccination leaflets on understanding, intention, and actual vaccination decision. Vaccine. 2014;32(12):1388–1393. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.12.03824486360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasieni P, Castanon A, Cuzick J. Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case-control study of prospectively recorded data. Bmj. 2009;339:b2968. doi:10.1136/bmj.b265119638651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerman C, Miller SM, Scarborough R, Hanjani P, Nolte S, Smith D. Adverse psychologic consequences of positive cytologic cervical screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165(3):658–662.1892194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot M-L, Westenberg SM, Helmerhorst T, Habbema JDF, van Ballegooijen M. How distressing is referral to colposcopy in cervical cancer screening?: A prospective quality of life study. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(1):142–148. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.11.00124219984
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;367(9509):489–498. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68181-616473126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waller J, Bartoszek M, Marlow L, Wardle J. Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: a population-based survey. J Med Screen. 2009;16(4):199–204. doi:10.1258/jms.2009.00907320054095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Til L, MacQuarrie C, Herbert R. Understanding the barriers to cervical cancer screening among older women. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(8):1116–1131. doi:10.1177/104973230325597514556422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolthoff SK, Hestbech MS, Jørgensen KJ, Brodersen J. Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening. J R Soc Med. 2016;109(7):274–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbard JH, Peters E. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24(1):413–433. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.14100512428034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans JSB. In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7(10):454–459.14550493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eiser JR, Cole N. Participation in cervical screening as a function of perceived risk, barriers and need for cognitive closure. J Health Psychol. 2002;7(1):99–105. doi:10.1177/135910530200700165722114230
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope KA, Moss E, Redman CW, Sherman SM. Psycho-social influences upon older women‘s decision to attend cervical screening: a review of current evidence. Prev Med. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters E. Beyond comprehension the role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21(1):31–35. doi:10.1177/0963721411429960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith SG, Forster AS, Kobayashi LC. Predictors of human papillomavirus awareness and knowledge in 2013. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1):e5–e7. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.01326094238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith SG, Kobayashi LC, Wolf MS, Raine R, Wardle J, von Wagner C. The associations between objective numeracy and colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes and defensive processing in a deprived community sample. J Health Psychol. 2016;21(8):1665–1675. doi:10.1177/135910531456091925512199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pignone MP, DeWalt DA. Literacy and health outcomes: is adherence the missing link? J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(8):896–897. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00545.x16881956
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith SK, Barratt A, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Jansen J, McCaffery KJ. A theoretical framework for measuring knowledge in screening decision aid trials. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(2):330–336. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.07.00922871477
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan NC, Ferreira MR, Davis TC, et al. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: does literacy make a difference? J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(13):2617–2622. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.10.14915226329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith S, McGregor L, Raine R, Wardle J, Wagner C, Robb K. Inequalities in cancer screening participation: examining differences in perceived benefits and barriers. Psycho‐Oncology. 2016;25(10):1168–1174. doi:10.1002/pon.419527309861
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tacken MA, Braspenning JC, Hermens RP, et al. Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women‘s beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization. Eur J Public Health. 2006;17(2):178–185. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckl08216837520
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making. 2007. doi:10.1177/0272989X07306786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. The drug facts box: improving the communication of prescription drug information. Proc National Acad Sci. 2013;110(Supplement 3):14069–14074. doi:10.1073/pnas.1214646110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G. Breast cancer screening pamphlets mislead women. BMJ. 2014;348:g2636.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.
   Google Scholar
• Fransen M, Van Schaik T, Twickler T, Essink-Bot M. Applicability of internationally available health literacy measures in the Netherlands. J Health Commun. 2011;16(sup3):134–149. doi:10.1080/10810730.2011.604383
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fransen MP, Leenaars KE, Rowlands G, Weiss BD, Maat HP, Essink-Bot M-L. International application of health literacy measures: adaptation and validation of the newest vital sign in The Netherlands. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97(3):403–409. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.08.01725224314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cokely ET, Galesic M, Schulz E, Ghazal S, Garcia-Retamero R. Measuring risk literacy: the Berlin numeracy test. Judgm Decis Mak. 2012;7(1):25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Ballegooijen M, Rebolj M, Essink-Bot M, Meerding W, Berkers L, Habbema JJREM. De effecten en kosten van het bevolkingsonderzoek naar baarmoederhalskanker in Nederland na de herstructurering[The effects and costs of the cervical cancer screening program in the Netherlands after the reorganization] . Rotterdam, Dutch: ErasmusMC; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Douma LN, Uiters E, Timmermans DR. The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion? BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1208. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3870-727899154
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson B, Zarifeh A, Young L, Wells JE. Patients‘ expectations of screening and preventive treatments. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(6):495–502. doi:10.1370/afm.140723149525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegwarth O, Wagner GG, Gigerenzer G. Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians’ non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0183024. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.018302428832633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caverly TJ, Hayward RA, Reamer E, et al. Presentation of benefits and harms in US cancer screening and prevention guidelines: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(6):djv436. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv43626917630
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peters E, Hart PS, Tusler M, Fraenkel L. Numbers matter to informed patient choices a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(4):430–442. doi:10.1177/0272989X1351170524246563
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar