IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i2p135-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Mortality alongside 5-Year Survival Rates and Incidence on the Public’s Perceived Benefits of Cancer Screening and Screening Intention: A Web-Based Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Soyun Kim

Abstract

Background Mortality is critical information in evaluating the benefits of cancer screening. However, 5-y survival rates and incidence, without mortality, have been frequently communicated to the public. Based on the literature that people’s perceptions and judgments can be altered by the way of presenting health statistics, the current study examined whether mortality alongside 5-y survival and incidence would influence laypeople’s perceptions of the effectiveness of cancer screening and screening intention. Methods In an online-based experimental survey conducted in South Korea in October 2022, 300 adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups (mortality: no v. yes) to be presented with 3 different cancers (A, B, and C). The perceived effectiveness of cancer screening and screening intention were measured using 7-point scales for each cancer. Results Across all cancers, participants in the no-mortality group perceived cancer screening to be more effective and were more willing to undergo screening compared with those in the mortality group, although the results were not statistically significant on the intention. Conclusions In general, mortality had an effect of decreasing the perceived effectiveness of cancer screening and screening intention compared with no mortality, although the effect on the intention was not statistically significant. Implications When communicating the benefits of cancer screening to the public, mortality statistics may play a role in mitigating the potentially inflated perception of the benefits of cancer screening and screening intention. Highlights Five-year survival rates, either alone or with incidence rates, are frequently communicated to the public in the context of the benefits of cancer screening. However, 5-y survival rates can sometimes be inflated without a reduction in mortality. Including mortality statistics in communications decreased the perceived effectiveness of cancer screening and screening intentions. Mortality information needs to be communicated in the benefits of cancer screening.

Suggested Citation

  • Soyun Kim, 2024. "Effect of Mortality alongside 5-Year Survival Rates and Incidence on the Public’s Perceived Benefits of Cancer Screening and Screening Intention: A Web-Based Experimental Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(2), pages 135-140, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:2:p:135-140
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231218278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231218278
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231218278?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. Cass Sunstein & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "Overreaction to Fearsome Risks," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 435-449, March.
    2. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:34-40 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Tim Krieger, 2011. "9/11's Legacy: How Abstract Fear and Collective Memory Lead to Real Economic Costs," Working Papers CIE 45, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    4. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh & Zamarro, Gema, 2022. "Teachers’ Knowledge and Preparedness for Retirement: Results from a Nationally Representative Teacher Survey," Working Papers 21-5, Sinquefield Center for Applied Economic Research, Saint Louis University.
    5. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Theresa Kuchler & Basit Zafar, 2019. "Personal Experiences and Expectations about Aggregate Outcomes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(5), pages 2491-2542, October.
    7. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    8. Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Hazel Bateman & Arthur van Soest & Johan Bonekamp, 2022. "Saving preferences after retirement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/342267, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 265-271, June.
    10. Cathy Anne Pinto & Gin Nie Chua & John F. P. Bridges & Ella Brookes & Johanna Hyacinthe & Tommi Tervonen, 2022. "Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatment During the Acute and Chronic Phases of Myocardial Infarction: A Discrete-Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 255-266, March.
    11. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    12. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    13. Gernot Wagner & Richard Zeckhauser, 2012. "Climate policy: hard problem, soft thinking," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 507-521, February.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Krieger, Tim & Meierrieks, Daniel, 2014. "How to deal with international terrorism," Discussion Paper Series 2014-03, University of Freiburg, Wilfried Guth Endowed Chair for Constitutional Political Economy and Competition Policy.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:152-158 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Friehe, Tim & Langlais, Eric, 2015. "On the political economy of public safety investments," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 7-16.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Diego Fernandez-Duque & Timothy Wifall, 2007. "Actor/observer asymmetry in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 1-8, February.
    20. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    21. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    22. Kousky, Carolyn & Rostapshova, Olga & Toman, Michael & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2009. "Responding to threats of climate change mega-catastrophes," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5127, The World Bank.
    23. Mazzeo, Michael J. & Hillel, Jonathan & Zyontz, Samantha, 2013. "Explaining the “unpredictable”: An empirical analysis of U.S. patent infringement awards," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 58-72.
    24. Chanel, Olivier & Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2013. "Valuing life: Experimental evidence using sensitivity to rare events," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 198-205.

    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:44:y:2024:i:2:p:135-140. 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.