SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S. Cancer statistics, 1998. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998;48:629.
  • 2
    Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:136571.
  • 3
    Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348:146771.
  • 4
    Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:147277.
  • 5
    Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:6537.
  • 6
    Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:5438.
  • 7
    Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol. 1995;14:17884.
  • 8
    O'connor AM. Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:11926.
  • 9
    Meyerowitz BE, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:50010.
  • 10
    Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC. Cancer patients' decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of “framing” information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:412.
  • 11
    Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making. 1995;15:1527.
  • 12
    Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:1214
  • 13
    Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1993;117:91621.
  • 14
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:96672.
  • 15
    Leard LE, Savides TJ, Ganiats TG. Patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening. J Fam Pract. 1997;45:2118.
  • 16
    Pignone MP, Bucholtz D, Harris R. Patient interest and preferences for colon cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 1998; 13(suppl 1):96.
  • 17
    Welch HG, Albertsen PC, Nease RF, Bubolz TA, Wasson JH. Estimating treatment benefits for the elderly: the effect of competing risks. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:57784.
  • 18
    Yancik R, Wesley MN, Ries LAG, et al. Comorbidity and age as predictors of risk for early mortality of male and female colon carcinoma patients—a population-based study. Cancer. 1998;82: 212334.
  • 19
    Ransohoff DF, Harris RP. Lessons from the mammography screening controversy: can we improve the debate? Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:102934.
  • 20
    Sox HC. Screening for disease in older people. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:4245.
  • 21
    Kassirer JP. Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:18956.