IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i6p708-718.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Laura D. Scherer

    (Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia MO, USA)

  • Jeffrey T. Kullgren

    (VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Tanner Caverly

    (VA Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

  • Aaron M. Scherer

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA)

  • Victoria A. Shaffer

    (Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia MO, USA)

  • Angela Fagerlin

    (VA Salt Lake City Center for Informatics Decision Enhancement and Surveillance (IDEAS), Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA)

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

    (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

Abstract

Purpose: The recently developed Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS) assesses individual differences in preferences for active v. passive medical treatment. We hypothesized that men’s maximizing-minimizing preferences might have relevance in the case of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, since there is considerable variability in men’s preference for being screened even among men who are informed that harm is more likely than benefit. The current research examined whether MMS preferences predict how men respond to didactic information and narrative stories about PSA screening. Design: US men 40+ years old ( N = 1208) participated in an online survey. Men viewed information about PSA screening in 3 phases and provided their preference for screening after each phase. Phase 1 described what PSA screening is. Phase 2 added didactic information about screening risks and benefits. Phase 3 added narrative stories; men were randomized to receive stories about 1) physical harm, 2) emotional harm, 3) overdiagnosis, or 4) all 3 stories. Participants also completed the validated MMS. Results: After receiving basic information, 76.8% of men wanted PSA screening. After receiving information about risks and benefits, 54.8% wanted screening (a significant reduction, P

Suggested Citation

  • Laura D. Scherer & Jeffrey T. Kullgren & Tanner Caverly & Aaron M. Scherer & Victoria A. Shaffer & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2018. "Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 708-718, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:708-718
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18782199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18782199
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18782199?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. Winterbottom, Anna & Bekker, Hilary L. & Conner, Mark & Mooney, Andrew, 2008. "Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2079-2088, December.
    2. Holly O. Witteman & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Laura D. Scherer & Arwen H. Pieterse & Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Nicole Exe & Valerie C. Kahn & Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nananda F. Col & Ale, 2016. "Effects of Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(6), pages 760-776, August.
    3. Holly O. Witteman & Laura D. Scherer & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Arwen H. Pieterse & Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Nicole Exe & Valerie C. Kahn & Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nananda F. Col & Ale, 2016. "Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 453-471, May.
    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. K. D. Valentine & Pete Wegier & Victoria A. Shaffer & Laura D. Scherer, 2022. "The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 387-397, April.
    2. Victoria A. Shaffer & Suzanne Brodney & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Yaara Zisman-Ilani & Sarah Munro & Sian K. Smith & Elizabeth Thomas & Katherine D. Valentine & Hilary L. Bekker, 2021. "Do Personal Stories Make Patient Decision Aids More Effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 897-906, October.

    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. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    2. Milner, Mattie & Rice, Stephen & Rice, Connor, 2019. "Support for environmentally-friendly airports influenced by political affiliation and social identity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    4. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.
    5. Jensen, Jakob D. & King, Andy J. & Carcioppolo, Nick & Krakow, Melinda & Samadder, N. Jewel & Morgan, Susan, 2014. "Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50–75: A randomized controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 31-40.
    6. Susanne Hoffmann & Francis G. Caro & Alison S. Gottlieb & Iris Kesternich & Joachim K. Winter, 2014. "Contributions of Second Opinions, Outcome Forecasts, and Testimonials to Patient Decisions about Knee Replacement Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 603-614, July.
    7. Pinandito Dhirotsaha Pramana & Prahastiwi Utari & Albert Muhammad Isrun Naini, 2020. "Restorative Narrative of Covid-19 Patients as Health Campaign Message: A Content Analysis of Youtube Videos," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 10(1), pages 121-132, August.
    8. Holly O. Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue & Gratianne Vaisson & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Bob Arnold & John F. P. Bridges & Sandrine Comeau & Angela Fagerlin & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Melina Marcoux & Arwen Pieter, 2021. "Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 801-820, October.
    9. Christopher E. Clarke & Jeff Niederdeppe & Helen C. Lundell, 2012. "Narratives and Images Used by Public Communication Campaigns Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Health Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    10. Victoria A. Shaffer & Suzanne Brodney & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Yaara Zisman-Ilani & Sarah Munro & Sian K. Smith & Elizabeth Thomas & Katherine D. Valentine & Hilary L. Bekker, 2021. "Do Personal Stories Make Patient Decision Aids More Effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 897-906, October.
    11. Victoria A. Shaffer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2013. "All Stories Are Not Alike," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 4-13, January.
    12. Cornelia Betsch & Corina Ulshöfer & Frank Renkewitz & Tilmann Betsch, 2011. "The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 742-753, September.
    13. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Annika Wallin & Andrew M. Parker & JoNell Strough & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "Effects of Anti- Versus Pro-Vaccine Narratives on Responses by Recipients Varying in Numeracy: A Cross-sectional Survey-Based Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 860-870, November.
    14. Aaron H. Anglin & Shane W. Reid & Jeremy C. Short, 2023. "More Than One Way to Tell a Story: A Configurational Approach to Storytelling in Crowdfunding," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 461-494, March.
    15. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    16. Cornelia Betsch & Frank Renkewitz & Niels Haase, 2013. "Effect of Narrative Reports about Vaccine Adverse Events and Bias-Awareness Disclaimers on Vaccine Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 14-25, January.
    17. Nida Gizem Yılmaz & Julia C. M. Van Weert & Ellen Peters & Birgit I. Lissenberg-Witte & Annemarie Becker & Suresh Senan & Chris Dickhoff & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Olga C. Damman, 2020. "Testing the Effects of Modality and Narration Style on Patients’ Information Use in a Lung Cancer Treatment Decision Aid," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(8), pages 990-1002, November.
    18. Richard W. Martin & Stina Brogård Andersen & Mary Ann O’Brien & Paulina Bravo & Tammy Hoffmann & Karina Olling & Heather L. Shepherd & Kathrina Dankl & Dawn Stacey & Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2021. "Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 780-800, October.
    19. Dillard, Amanda J. & Fagerlin, Angela & Cin, Sonya Dal & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2010. "Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 45-52, July.
    20. van Laer, Tom & de Ruyter, Ko, 2010. "In stories we trust: How narrative apologies provide cover for competitive vulnerability after integrity-violating blog posts," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 164-174.

    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:38:y:2018:i:6:p:708-718. 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.