1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Decision‐making in screening positive participants who follow up with colonoscopy in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: A mixed‐method study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To explore worry and decision‐making processes used by faecal immunochemical test (FIT)‐positive participants in the Dutch national screening programme for colorectal cancer.

          Methods

          A mixed‐methods study consisting of 22 semi‐structured interviews in FIT‐positive participants who underwent the recommended colonoscopy within 4–6 months after the FIT result, followed by a widespread questionnaire in a larger target population ( N = 1495).

          Results

          In the interviews, we recognised two different decision‐making processes. The first is an affective heuristic decision process where the decision to participate is made instantly and is paired with high‐risk perception, worry and (severe) emotional turmoil. The second is a more time‐consuming analytical decision process in which participants describe discussing options with others. In the questionnaire, high levels of cancer worry (CWS > 9) were reported by 34% of respondents. Decisional difficulties were reported by 15% of respondents, and 34% of respondents reported discussing the positive FIT result with their GP. Individuals with high levels of cancer worry contacted their GP less often than those with low levels.

          Conclusions

          The Dutch two‐step screening programme may result in high levels of cancer worry in a non‐cancer population. More research is needed to monitor worry and its role in decision‐making in cancer screening, as well as ways to facilitate decision‐making for participants.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.

            Early studies of intuitive judgment and decision making conducted with the late Amos Tversky are reviewed in the context of two related concepts: an analysis of accessibility, the ease with which thoughts come to mind; a distinction between effortless intuition and deliberate reasoning. Intuitive thoughts, like percepts, are highly accessible. Determinants and consequences of accessibility help explain the central results of prospect theory, framing effects, the heuristic process of attribute substitution, and the characteristic biases that result from the substitution of nonextensional for extensional attributes. Variations in the accessibility of rules explain the occasional corrections of intuitive judgments. The study of biases is compatible with a view of intuitive thinking and decision making as generally skilled and successful.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Heuristic decision making.

              As reflected in the amount of controversy, few areas in psychology have undergone such dramatic conceptual changes in the past decade as the emerging science of heuristics. Heuristics are efficient cognitive processes, conscious or unconscious, that ignore part of the information. Because using heuristics saves effort, the classical view has been that heuristic decisions imply greater errors than do "rational" decisions as defined by logic or statistical models. However, for many decisions, the assumptions of rational models are not met, and it is an empirical rather than an a priori issue how well cognitive heuristics function in an uncertain world. To answer both the descriptive question ("Which heuristics do people use in which situations?") and the prescriptive question ("When should people rely on a given heuristic rather than a complex strategy to make better judgments?"), formal models are indispensable. We review research that tests formal models of heuristic inference, including in business organizations, health care, and legal institutions. This research indicates that (a) individuals and organizations often rely on simple heuristics in an adaptive way, and (b) ignoring part of the information can lead to more accurate judgments than weighting and adding all information, for instance for low predictability and small samples. The big future challenge is to develop a systematic theory of the building blocks of heuristics as well as the core capacities and environmental structures these exploit.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                bertels@eshpm.eur.nl
                Journal
                Psychooncology
                Psychooncology
                10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1611
                PON
                Psycho-Oncology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1057-9249
                1099-1611
                17 September 2021
                February 2022
                : 31
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1002/pon.v31.2 )
                : 245-252
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of General Practice Cancer Center Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health Amsterdam UMC University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Socio‐Medical Sciences Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management Rotterdam The Netherlands
                [ 3 ] Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel) Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 4 ] Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 5 ] Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Cancer Center Amsterdam Amsterdam UMC University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Lucinda Bertels, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

                Email: bertels@ 123456eshpm.eur.nl

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8195-3924
                Article
                PON5814
                10.1002/pon.5814
                9291115
                34535928
                4b4c83e1-46d7-4173-ab70-daf3a316bd5f
                © 2021 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 15 June 2021
                : 12 March 2021
                : 11 August 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Pages: 8, Words: 5503
                Funding
                Funded by: KWF Kankerbestrijding , doi 10.13039/501100004622;
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                February 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:18.07.2022

                anthropology,colorectal cancer,decision making,early detection of cancer,mass screening,medical,oncology,psycho‐oncology,psychological distress,public health,sociology

                Comments

                Comment on this article