follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Where am I? version 502 | Main | Another genuinely informative study of consensus messaging »
Tuesday
Apr182017

Last session in Science of Science Communication 2017

Not usually where we end, but frolicks & detours along the way were worthwhile

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

I don't think that the impacts of "message framing" and risk comprehension regarding women's decision-making process with regards getting mammograms can be determine without much greater attention to the changing nature of the best available guidelines and practices. It's a complex thing to navigate between messages from the various commercially involved entities. Most of which is, IMHO delivered in a way too authoritarian and self righteous manner. As if there are set absolute rules that could be followed.

Just for figuring out the best metrics for screening is complicated. See for example: http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/features/new-mammogram-screening-guidelines-faq#1

But also there are many other interrelated issues:

Big Pharma's (mostly former) marketing of youth enhancing hormone therapies, now linked to breast cancer.

Big Cancer Treatment's (frequently false, as it now turns out) idea that finding teeny specs of cancerous or pre-cancerous cells and performing drastic surgery and chemotherapy necessarily saved, or even lengthened women's lives.

Additionally, my local hospital has just purchased new 3D mammography equipment. Which they are marketing heavily with flashy fliers and even phone calls. For which promising, but relatively statistically vague information is given such as:

Many studies in Europe and the U.S. have substantiated superior breast cancer detection rates when combining 3D mammography with conventional 2D mammography. Studies have demonstrated a 10%-30% increase in overall breast cancer detection (over 2D imaging alone). This ability to detect breast cancer at an earlier stage will save more lives. Two of the top benefits are improving the early detection of breast cancer and providing peace of mind due to greater clarity and accuracy. This increased accuracy reduces the number of call-backs (by as much as 30%), sparing women the anxiety, inconvenience and expense of coming back for further imaging. 3D mammography offers exceptionally sharp breast images, an advanced ergonomic design providing more patient comfort, and a ground-breaking 3D tomosynthesis platform designed to deliver superior screening and diagnostic performance.

Missing are details like the level of training their personnel have in interpreting the new information, and how much additional radiation is involved. Or the cost and/or insurance co-pays involved.

All of which is moot because the hospital got bought out by a competitor to my insurance company and will no longer pay for any of my procedures there except in case of emergency.

April 18, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>