事实框对癌症筛查的适度影响。

IF 1.3 2区 经济学 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Pub Date : 2021-02-01 Epub Date: 2021-02-17 DOI:10.1007/s11166-021-09344-x
Michael R Eber, Cass R Sunstein, James K Hammitt, Jennifer M Yeh
{"title":"事实框对癌症筛查的适度影响。","authors":"Michael R Eber,&nbsp;Cass R Sunstein,&nbsp;James K Hammitt,&nbsp;Jennifer M Yeh","doi":"10.1007/s11166-021-09344-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As health care becomes increasingly personalized to the needs and values of individual patients, informational interventions that aim to inform and debias consumer decision-making are likely to become important tools. In a randomized controlled experiment, we explore the effects of providing participants with published fact boxes on the benefits and harms of common cancer screening procedures. Female participants were surveyed about breast cancer screening by mammography, while male participants were surveyed about prostate cancer screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. For these screening procedures, we expect consumers to have overly optimistic prior beliefs about the benefits and harms. We find that participants update their beliefs about the net benefits of screening modestly, but we observe little change in their stated preferences to seek screening. Participants who scored higher on a numeracy test updated their beliefs about screening benefits more in response to the fact boxes than did participants who scored lower on the numeracy test.</p>","PeriodicalId":48066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty","volume":"62 1","pages":"29-54"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11166-021-09344-x","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Modest Effects of Fact Boxes on Cancer Screening.\",\"authors\":\"Michael R Eber,&nbsp;Cass R Sunstein,&nbsp;James K Hammitt,&nbsp;Jennifer M Yeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11166-021-09344-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As health care becomes increasingly personalized to the needs and values of individual patients, informational interventions that aim to inform and debias consumer decision-making are likely to become important tools. In a randomized controlled experiment, we explore the effects of providing participants with published fact boxes on the benefits and harms of common cancer screening procedures. Female participants were surveyed about breast cancer screening by mammography, while male participants were surveyed about prostate cancer screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. For these screening procedures, we expect consumers to have overly optimistic prior beliefs about the benefits and harms. We find that participants update their beliefs about the net benefits of screening modestly, but we observe little change in their stated preferences to seek screening. Participants who scored higher on a numeracy test updated their beliefs about screening benefits more in response to the fact boxes than did participants who scored lower on the numeracy test.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"29-54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11166-021-09344-x\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-021-09344-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/2/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-021-09344-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

随着医疗保健越来越个性化,以满足个别患者的需求和价值,旨在告知和消除消费者决策的信息干预可能成为重要工具。在一项随机对照实验中,我们探索了向参与者提供关于普通癌症筛查程序的利弊的公开事实框的影响。女性参与者接受乳房x光检查进行乳腺癌筛查,男性参与者接受前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)检测进行前列腺癌筛查。对于这些筛选程序,我们期望消费者对其利弊有过于乐观的先验信念。我们发现,参与者适度地更新了他们对筛查净收益的看法,但我们观察到他们对寻求筛查的陈述偏好几乎没有变化。在计算能力测试中得分较高的参与者比在计算能力测试中得分较低的参与者对事实框的反应更能更新他们对筛查益处的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Modest Effects of Fact Boxes on Cancer Screening.

As health care becomes increasingly personalized to the needs and values of individual patients, informational interventions that aim to inform and debias consumer decision-making are likely to become important tools. In a randomized controlled experiment, we explore the effects of providing participants with published fact boxes on the benefits and harms of common cancer screening procedures. Female participants were surveyed about breast cancer screening by mammography, while male participants were surveyed about prostate cancer screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. For these screening procedures, we expect consumers to have overly optimistic prior beliefs about the benefits and harms. We find that participants update their beliefs about the net benefits of screening modestly, but we observe little change in their stated preferences to seek screening. Participants who scored higher on a numeracy test updated their beliefs about screening benefits more in response to the fact boxes than did participants who scored lower on the numeracy test.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
10.60%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (JRU) welcomes original empirical, experimental, and theoretical manuscripts dealing with the analysis of risk-bearing behavior and decision making under uncertainty. The topics covered in the journal include, but are not limited to, decision theory and the economics of uncertainty, experimental investigations of behavior under uncertainty, empirical studies of real world risk-taking behavior, behavioral models of choice under uncertainty, and risk and public policy. Review papers are welcome. The JRU does not publish finance or behavioral finance research, game theory, note length work, or papers that treat Likert-type scales as having cardinal significance. An important aim of the JRU is to encourage interdisciplinary communication and interaction between researchers in the area of risk and uncertainty. Authors are expected to provide introductory discussions which set forth the nature of their research and the interpretation and implications of their findings in a manner accessible to knowledgeable researchers in other disciplines. Officially cited as: J Risk Uncertain
期刊最新文献
Subjective beliefs, health, and health behaviors Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion The gambler’s fallacy prevails in lottery play Are economic preferences shaped by the family context? The relation of birth order and siblings’ gender composition to economic preferences Reference-dependent discounting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1