IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v285y2021ics0277953621005876.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do people understand overtesting and overdiagnosis? Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research

Author

Listed:
  • Rozbroj, Tomas
  • Haas, Romi
  • O'Connor, Denise
  • Carter, Stacy M.
  • McCaffery, Kirsten
  • Thomas, Rae
  • Donovan, Jan
  • Buchbinder, Rachelle

Abstract

The public should be informed about overtesting and overdiagnosis. Diverse qualitative studies have examined public understandings of this information. A synthesis was needed to systematise the body of evidence and yield new, generalisable insights.

Suggested Citation

  • Rozbroj, Tomas & Haas, Romi & O'Connor, Denise & Carter, Stacy M. & McCaffery, Kirsten & Thomas, Rae & Donovan, Jan & Buchbinder, Rachelle, 2021. "How do people understand overtesting and overdiagnosis? Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:285:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621005876
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621005876
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114255?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valerie F. Reyna, 2008. "A Theory of Medical Decision Making and Health: Fuzzy Trace Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 850-865, November.
    2. David Schleifer & David J Rothman, 2012. "“The Ultimate Decision Is Yours”: Exploring Patients’ Attitudes about the Overuse of Medical Interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-6, December.
    3. Avnika B. Amin & Robert A. Bednarczyk & Cara E. Ray & Kala J. Melchiori & Jesse Graham & Jeffrey R. Huntsinger & Saad B. Omer, 2017. "Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 873-880, December.
    4. Ray Moynihan & Brooke Nickel & Jolyn Hersch & Elaine Beller & Jenny Doust & Shane Compton & Alexandra Barratt & Lisa Bero & Kirsten McCaffery, 2015. "Public Opinions about Overdiagnosis: A National Community Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Hofmann, Bjørn, 2020. "Biases distorting priority setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 52-60.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shih, Patti & Prokopovich, Kathleen & Degeling, Chris & Street, Jacqueline & Carter, Stacy M., 2022. "Direct-to-consumer detection of atrial fibrillation in a smartwatch electrocardiogram: Medical overuse, medicalisation and the experience of consumers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Volker Thoma & Elliott White & Asha Panigrahi & Vanessa Strowger & Irina Anderson, 2015. "Good Thinking or Gut Feeling? Cognitive Reflection and Intuition in Traders, Bankers and Financial Non-Experts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Anne Stiggelbout & Tessa Copp & Gemma Jacklyn & Jesse Jansen & Gerrit-Jan Liefers & Kirsten McCaffery & Jolyn Hersch, 2020. "Women’s Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(1), pages 42-51, January.
    3. Gabriella Passerini & Laura Macchi & Maria Bagassi, 2012. "A methodological approach to ratio bias," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(5), pages 602-617, September.
    4. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    5. Claudy, Marius C. & Parkinson, Mary & Aquino, Karl, 2024. "Why should innovators care about morality? Political ideology, moral foundations, and the acceptance of technological innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Mehdi Mourali & Zhiyong Yang, 2023. "Misperception of Multiple Risks in Medical Decision-Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(1), pages 25-47.
    7. Callaghan, Timothy & Motta, Matthew & Sylvester, Steven & Lunz Trujillo, Kristin & Blackburn, Christine Crudo, 2019. "Parent psychology and the decision to delay childhood vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Buckman, Cierra & Liu, Indran C. & Cortright, Lindsay & Tumin, Dmitry & Syed, Salma, 2020. "The influence of local political trends on childhood vaccine completion in North Carolina," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    10. Daphne Bussink-Voorend & Jeannine L. A. Hautvast & Lisa Vandeberg & Olga Visser & Marlies E. J. L. Hulscher, 2022. "A systematic literature review to clarify the concept of vaccine hesitancy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(12), pages 1634-1648, December.
    11. Timmons, Shane & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Public understanding of climate change and support for mitigation," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS135.
    12. Rasa Kanapickiene & Deimante Teresiene & Daiva Budriene & Greta Keliuotytė-Staniulėnienė & Jekaterina Kartasova, 2020. "The Impact Of Covid-19 On European Financial Markets And Economic Sentiment," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 14(1), pages 144-163.
    13. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    14. Jordan Luttrell-Freeman & Timothy J. Bungum & Jennifer R. Pharr, 2021. "A Systematic Review of the Rationale for Vaccine Hesitancy among American Parents," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(8), pages 1-77, August.
    15. Heard, Claire Louise & Rakow, Tim, 2022. "Examining insensitivity to probability in evidence‐based communication of relative risks: the role of affect and communication format," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113810, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Bonnie Spring, 2008. "Health Decision Making: Lynchpin of Evidence-Based Practice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 866-874, November.
    17. Kevin E. Tiede & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2023. "How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 803-820, October.
    18. Motta, Matt & Callaghan, Timothy & Trujillo, Kristin Lunz & Lockman, Alee, 2022. "Erroneous Consonance. How Inaccurate Beliefs about Physician Opinion Influence COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy," SocArXiv 8hnxd, Center for Open Science.
    19. DeDominicis, Kali & Buttenheim, Alison M. & Howa, Amanda C. & Delamater, Paul L. & Salmon, Daniel & Omer, Saad B. & Klein, Nicola P., 2020. "Shouting at each other into the void: A linguistic network analysis of vaccine hesitance and support in online discourse regarding California law SB277," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    20. Pieterse, Arwen H. & de Vries, Marieke & Kunneman, Marleen & Stiggelbout, Anne M. & Feldman-Stewart, Deb, 2013. "Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 156-163.

    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:eee:socmed:v:285:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621005876. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.