Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Patients' Expectations of Screening and Preventive Treatments

Ben Hudson, Abby Zarifeh, Lorraine Young and J. Elisabeth Wells
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2012, 10 (6) 495-502; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1407
Ben Hudson
1Department of Public Health and General Practice, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
MRCGP, FRNZCGP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ben.hudson@otago.ac.nz
Abby Zarifeh
2School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lorraine Young
3Pegasus Health Charitable Ltd, Christchurch, New Zealand
DPH, PGCE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Elisabeth Wells
1Department of Public Health and General Practice, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
  • Table 1.
  • Table 2.
    • View popup
    Table 3. Predictors of Overestimating Expected Benefit
    PredictorBreast Cancer ScreeningBowel Cancer ScreeningHip Fracture PreventionCVD Prevention
    % (95% CI)ORa (95% CI)% (95% CI)ORa (95% CI)% (95% CI)ORa (95% CI)% (95% CI)ORa (95% CI)
    Age, y
     50-5486 (77-92)0.6 (0.3-1.0)89 (81-95)0.6 (0.3-1.0)80 (71-88)1.2 (0.7-2.2)70 (59-79)0.7 (0.4-1.3)
     55-5990 (82-95)0.6 (0.3-1.1)95 (88-98)0.5 (0.3-0.8)83 (73-90)1.0 (0.6-1.8)62 (51-72)0.5 (0.3-1.0)
     60-6498 (93-100)0.9 (0.5-1.6)98 (93-100)0.7 (0.4-1.3)87 (79-92)1.3 (0.7-2.2)75 (66-83)0.9 (0.5-1.7)
     65-7095 (88-98)1.0100 (96-100)1.082 (72-89)1.074 (63-83)1.0
     P value .12 .05 .73 .13
    Sex
     Male92 (88-95)1.094 (90-97)1.083 (78-88)1.067 (60-73)1.0
     Female93 (89-97)1.0 (0.7-1.6)97 (93-99)1.5 (1.0-2.2)84 (77-89)1.0 (0.7-1.6)73 (66-80)1.3 (0.9-2.0)
     P valueb .81 .058 .84 .18
    Educationc
     Lower97 (93-99)1.098 (94-100)1.086 (79-92)1.078 (69-85)1.0
     Higher91 (87-94)0.6 (0.4-1.0)94 (91-97)0.5 (0.3-0.8)82 (77-87)0.8 (0.5-1.1)66 (60-72)0.6 (0.4-0.9)
     P valued .03 .002 .19 .026
    Past experiencee
     No––96 (93-98)1.0 (0.6-1.4)84 (79-98)0.9 (0.5-1.7)69 (64-74)1.0 (0.6-1.8)
     Yes––94 (89-97)1.080 (66-90)1.076 (61-86)1.0
     P valued– .85 .82 .98
    • CVD = cardiovascular disease; OR = odds ratio.

    • ↵a OR calculated from multivariable logistic regression with the proportional odds assumption, across all response levels excluding unknown. OR >1.0 indicates higher estimates of effectiveness.

    • ↵b df = 3.

    • ↵c df = 1.

    • ↵d Lower = primary or secondary school only. Higher = post-school qualification.

    • ↵e Prior bowel cancer screening, diagnosis of osteoporosis or current medication for osteoporosis, and history of vascular disease. Breast cancer screening—only 5 women had never been screened so not included in the mode.

  • Table 4.
    • View popup
    Table 5. Predictors of Overestimating Minimum Acceptable Benefit
    PredictorBreast Cancer ScreeningBowel Cancer ScreeningHip Fracture PreventionCVD Prevention
    % (95% CI)ORa (95% CI)% (95% CI)ORa (95% CI)% (95% CI)ORa (95% CI)% (95% CI)ORa (95% CI)
    Age, y
     50-5458 (46-68)0.4 (0.2-0.7)56 (45-66)0.4 (0.2-0.7)52 (42-63)0.7 (0.4-1.2)28 (19-39)0.5 (0.3-0.9)
     55-5971 (60-80)0.8 (0.4-1.3)70 (59-79)0.7 (0.4-1.3)64 (53-74)1.0 (0.6-1.8)48 (37-58)1.0 (0.6-1.8)
     60-6481 (72-88)1.5 (0.9-2.5)84 (75-90)1.2 (0.7-2.0)71 (62-79)1.3 (0.7-2.2)59 (49-69)1.3 (0.8-2.3)
     65-7078 (68-86)1.079 (69-87)1.071 (61-81)1.051 (40-62)1.0
     P valueb<.0001 .0006 .11 .006
    Sex
     Male68 (61-74)1.070 (64-76)1.063 (56-69)1.042 (35-49)1.0
     Female78 (71-84)1.4 (0.9-2.0)78 (70-84)1.4 (1.0-2.1)68 (61-75)1.3(0.9-2.0)54 (46-62)1.6 (1.1-2.3)
     P valuec .12 .081 .16 .022
    Educationd
     Lower84 (76-90)1.086 (79-92)1.082 (74-89)1.067 (58-76)1.0
     Higher67 (61-73)0.4 (0.2-0.6)67 (61-73)0.4 (0.2-0.5)54 (48-60)0.4 (0.3-0.7)38 (32-45)0.4 (0.3-0.5)
     P valuec<.0001<.0001 .0001<.0001
    Past experiencee
     No––73 (67-78)0.8 (0.5-1.2)65 (60-71)1.0 (0.5-1.8)48 (42-53)1.0 (0.6-1.8)
     Yes––73 (64-80)1.062 (47-75)1.047 (33-61)1.0
     P valuec– .3 .93 .95
    • VD = cardiovascular disease; OR = odds ratio.

    • ↵a OR calculated from multivariable logistic regression with the proportional odds assumption, across all response levels excluding unknown. OR >1.0 indicates higher estimates of benefit.

    • ↵b df = 3.

    • ↵c df = 1.

    • ↵d Lower = primary or secondary school only. Higher = post-school qualification.

    • ↵e Prior bowel cancer screening, diagnosis of osteoporosis or current medication for osteoporosis, and history of vascular disease. Breast cancer screening—only 5 women had never been screened so not included in the mode.

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • Supplemental Appendix

    Supplemental Appendix 1.Questionnaire: Intervention Questions

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental data: Appendix - PDF file, 2 pages, 188 KB
  • The Article in Brief

    Ben Hudson , and colleagues

    Background An informed decision about whether to accept screening and preventive care requires balancing the potential benefits and harms of the intervention. This study assesses participants' estimates of the benefit, as well as the minimum acceptable benefit, of screening for breast and bowel cancer and of medication to prevent hip fracture and cardiovascular disease.

    What This Study Found Many patients appear willing to undergo preventive care on the basis of overly optimistic expectations of the benefits of preventive interventions and screening. Data from 354 patient questionnaires found that participants overestimated the degree of benefit of all interventions. A lower level of education was associated with higher estimates of minimum acceptable benefit for all interventions. Increasing age was associated with higher levels of minimum acceptable benefit for all interventions other than hip fracture prevention.

    Implications

    • The authors conclude that, when counseling patients, physicians should consider these misperceptions, which may impair informed decision making about the use of such interventions.
    • Clinicians should also consider using decision aids when discussing preventive care, especially with older patients and those with a lower level of education, as the aids may reduce patients' tendency to overestimate intervention benefits.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (6)
Vol. 10, Issue 6
November/December 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Patients' Expectations of Screening and Preventive Treatments
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Patients' Expectations of Screening and Preventive Treatments
Ben Hudson, Abby Zarifeh, Lorraine Young, J. Elisabeth Wells
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2012, 10 (6) 495-502; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1407

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Patients' Expectations of Screening and Preventive Treatments
Ben Hudson, Abby Zarifeh, Lorraine Young, J. Elisabeth Wells
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2012, 10 (6) 495-502; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1407
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Surveys of parents and clinicians concerning the minimally important difference of probiotic therapy for prevention of paediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhoea
  • How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?
  • Patient-rated importance of key information on screening colonoscopy in Germany: a survey of statutory health insurance members
  • Patient preferences for cardiovascular preventive medication: a systematic review
  • Patients' estimations of the importance of preventive health services: a nationwide, population-based cross-sectional study in Portugal
  • Awareness of Heuristics in Clinical Decision Making
  • Evidence Principles: Caveats in Translation of Probability and Risk
  • In This Issue: Through the Lens of a Clinician
  • The Price of False Beliefs: Unrealistic Expectations as a Contributor to the Health Care Crisis
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Family-Based Interventions to Promote Weight Management in Adults: Results From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in India
  • Teamwork Among Primary Care Staff to Achieve Regular Follow-Up of Chronic Patients
  • Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Prevention
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other topics:
    • Communication / decision making
    • Patient perspectives

Keywords

  • cancer screening
  • coronary artery disease
  • osteoporosis
  • health promotion
  • atherosclerosis/prevention & control
  • bone loss/prevention & control

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine