IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v7y2023i1p157-169_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cancer screening and accessibility bias: people want screening when informed it saves no lives

Author

Listed:
  • HODSON, NATHAN

Abstract

Some cancer screening programs are built on contentious evidence, but the public are generally positive about screening. Many professional organizations have settled on a fudge: allow the people to decide for themselves. Given the potential limitations of individual decision-making, there is increasing support for helping individuals to make better decisions. This paper presents experimental data supporting the claim that individuals are largely unresponsive to data about screening and base their decisions upon factors that professionals would consider inappropriate reasons for screening. The most plausible explanation for this phenomenon comes from accessibility bias. Professionals can no longer sustain the argument that, with respect to cancer screening, individual choice reflects a meaningful expression of autonomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Hodson, Nathan, 2023. "Cancer screening and accessibility bias: people want screening when informed it saves no lives," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 157-169, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:7:y:2023:i:1:p:157-169_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X2000010X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:7:y:2023:i:1:p:157-169_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.