Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14709578/ below:

Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States

Affiliations

• ¹ VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction, Vt, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA.

• PMID: 14709578
• DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.1.71

Item in Clipboard

Lisa M Schwartz et al. JAMA. 2004.

• ¹ VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction, Vt, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA.

• PMID: 14709578
• DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.1.71

Item in Clipboard

Context: Public health officials, physicians, and disease advocacy groups have worked hard to educate individuals living in the United States about the importance of cancer screening.

Objective: To determine the public's enthusiasm for early cancer detection.

Design, setting, and participants: Survey using a national telephone interview of adults selected by random digit dialing, conducted from December 2001 through July 2002. Five hundred individuals participated (women aged > or =40 years and men aged > or =50 years; without a history of cancer).

Main outcome measures: Responses to a survey with 5 modules: a general screening module (eg, value of early detection, total-body computed tomography); and 4 screening test modules: Papanicolaou test; mammography; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test; and sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy.

Results: Most adults (87%) believe routine cancer screening is almost always a good idea and that finding cancer early saves lives (74% said most or all the time). Less than one third believe that there will be a time when they will stop undergoing routine screening. A substantial proportion believe that an 80-year-old who chose not to be tested was irresponsible: ranging from 41% with regard to mammography to 32% for colonoscopy. Thirty-eight percent of respondents had experienced at least 1 false-positive screening test; more than 40% of these individuals characterized that experience as "very scary" or the "scariest time of my life." Yet, looking back, 98% were glad they had had the initial screening test. Most had a strong desire to know about the presence of cancer regardless of its implications: two thirds said they would want to be tested for cancer even if nothing could be done; and 56% said they would want to be tested for what is sometimes termed pseudodisease (cancers growing so slowly that they would never cause problems during the persons lifetime even if untreated). Seventy-three percent of respondents would prefer to receive a total-body computed tomographic scan instead of receiving 1000 dollars in cash.

Conclusions: The public is enthusiastic about cancer screening. This commitment is not dampened by false-positive test results or the possibility that testing could lead to unnecessary treatment. This enthusiasm creates an environment ripe for the premature diffusion of technologies such as total-body computed tomographic scanning, placing the public at risk of overtesting and overtreatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Celebrity endorsements of cancer screening.

  Larson RJ, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Larson RJ, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 May 4;97(9):693-5. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji117. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005. PMID: 15870440

• Cancer screening rates in individuals with different life expectancies.

  Royce TJ, Hendrix LH, Stokes WA, Allen IM, Chen RC. Royce TJ, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct;174(10):1558-65. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3895. JAMA Intern Med. 2014. PMID: 25133746

• The public's enthusiasm for cancer screening.

  Fankhauser G. Fankhauser G. JAMA. 2004 Apr 21;291(15):1836; author reply 1836. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.15.1836-a. JAMA. 2004. PMID: 15100200 No abstract available.

• Toward a system of cancer screening in the United States: trends and opportunities.

  Breen N, Meissner HI. Breen N, et al. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:561-82. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144703. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005. PMID: 15760301 Review.

• Current evidence for the use of emerging radiologic technologies for disease screening.

  Ashar BH, Hughes MT, Marinopoulos SS, Prokopowicz GP, Berkenblit GV, Sisson SD, Simonson LA, Miller RG. Ashar BH, et al. Am J Manag Care. 2005 Jun;11(6):385-92. Am J Manag Care. 2005. PMID: 15974558 Review.

• Lung cancer screening practices of primary care physicians: results from a national survey.

  Klabunde CN, Marcus PM, Han PK, Richards TB, Vernon SW, Yuan G, Silvestri GA. Klabunde CN, et al. Ann Fam Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;10(2):102-10. doi: 10.1370/afm.1340. Ann Fam Med. 2012. PMID: 22412001 Free PMC article.

• Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study.

  Hayeems RZ, Miller FA, Bombard Y, Avard D, Carroll J, Wilson B, Little J, Chakraborty P, Bytautas J, Giguere Y, Allanson J, Axler R. Hayeems RZ, et al. Health Expect. 2015 Jun;18(3):419-29. doi: 10.1111/hex.12047. Epub 2013 Feb 1. Health Expect. 2015. PMID: 23369110 Free PMC article.

• Older adults and forgoing cancer screening: "I think it would be strange".

  Torke AM, Schwartz PH, Holtz LR, Montz K, Sachs GA. Torke AM, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Apr 8;173(7):526-31. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2903. JAMA Intern Med. 2013. PMID: 23478883 Free PMC article.

• Reading the crystal ball: Primary care implications while awaiting outcomes for multi-cancer early detection tests.

  Lin GA, Phillips KA, Fendrick AM. Lin GA, et al. Healthc (Amst). 2023 Sep;11(3):100705. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2023.100705. Epub 2023 Aug 18. Healthc (Amst). 2023. PMID: 37598614 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

• The ethics of how to manage incidental findings.

  Ells C, Thombs BD. Ells C, et al. CMAJ. 2014 Jun 10;186(9):655-6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.140136. Epub 2014 Mar 31. CMAJ. 2014. PMID: 24688013 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3