IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i3p386-394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deceiving Numbers

Author

Listed:
  • Odette Wegwarth
  • Wolfgang Gaissmaier
  • Gerd Gigerenzer

Abstract

Background. Increased 5-y survival for screened patients is often inferred to mean that fewer patients die of cancer. However, due to several biases, the 5-y survival rate is a misleading metric for evaluating a screening’s effectiveness. If physicians are not aware of these issues, informed screening counseling cannot take place. Methods. Two questionnaire versions (“group†and “time†) presented 4 conditions: 5-y survival (5Y), 5-y survival and annual disease-specific mortality (5YM), annual disease-specific mortality (M), and 5-y survival, annual disease-specific mortality, and incidence (5YMI). Questionnaire version “time†presented data as a comparison between 2 time points and version “group†as a comparison between a screened and an unscreened group. All data were based on statistics for the same cancer site (prostate). Outcome variables were the recommendation of screening, reasoning behind recommendation, judgment of the screening’s effectiveness, and, if judged effective, a numerical estimate of how many fewer people out of 1000 would die if screened regularly. After randomized allocation, 65 German physicians in internal medicine and its subspecialities completed either of the 2 questionnaire versions. Results. Across both versions, 66% of the physicians recommended screening when presented with 5Y, but only 8% of the same physicians made the recommendation when presented with M (5YM: 31%; 5YMI: 55%). Also, 5Y made considerably more physicians (78%) judge the screening to be effective than any other condition (5YM: 31%; M: 5%; 5YMI: 49%) and led to the highest overestimations of benefit. Conclusion. A large number of physicians erroneously based their screening recommendation and judgment of screening’s effectiveness on the 5-y survival rate. Results show that reporting disease-specificmortality rates can offer a simple solution to physicians’ confusion about the real effect of screening.

Suggested Citation

  • Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:3:p:386-394
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10391469
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10391469
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10391469?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    2. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    3. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    4. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    5. Mei-Chun Cheung & Derry Law & Joanne Yip & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2022. "Adolescents’ Experience during Brace Treatment for Scoliosis: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-10, August.
    6. Margaret Gerteis & Rosemary Borck, "undated". "Shared Decision-Making in Practice: Lessons from Implementation Efforts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f802e52b8442486594ecda927, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    8. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    9. Vivek Goel & Carol A. Sawka & Elaine C. Thiel & Elaine H. Gort & Annette M. O’Connor, 2001. "Randomized Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Choice of Surgical Treatment for Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 1-6, February.
    10. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    11. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    12. Yoko Ueno & Mayumi Kako & Mitsuko Ohira & Hitoshi Okamura, 2020. "Shared decision‐making for women facing an unplanned pregnancy: A qualitative study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1186-1196, December.
    13. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    14. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    15. Våga, Bodil Bø & Moland, Karen Marie & Evjen-Olsen, Bjørg & Blystad, Astrid, 2014. "Reflections on informed choice in resource-poor settings: The case of infant feeding counselling in PMTCT programmes in Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 22-29.
    16. Antonius Schneider & Magdalena Wübken & Klaus Linde & Markus Bühner, 2014. "Communicating and Dealing with Uncertainty in General Practice: The Association with Neuroticism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-7, July.
    17. Jonathan J. Rolison & Kinga Morsanyi & Ellen Peters, 2020. "Understanding Health Risk Comprehension: The Role of Math Anxiety, Subjective Numeracy, and Objective Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 222-234, February.
    18. Öhlén, Joakim & Balneaves, Lynda G. & Bottorff, Joan L. & Brazier, Alison S.A., 2006. "The influence of significant others in complementary and alternative medicine decisions by cancer patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1625-1636, September.
    19. Peek, Monica E. & Odoms-Young, Angela & Quinn, Michael T. & Gorawara-Bhat, Rita & Wilson, Shannon C. & Chin, Marshall H., 2010. "Race and shared decision-making: Perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-9, July.
    20. L. Aubree Shay & Jennifer Elston Lafata, 2015. "Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 114-131, January.

    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:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:3:p:386-394. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.