Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation

Laura D. Scherer, Krithika Suresh, Carmen L. Lewis, Kirsten J. McCaffery, Jolyn Hersch, Joseph N. Cappella, Brad Morse, Channing E. Tate, Bridget S. Mosley, Sarah Schmiege and Marilyn M. Schapira
Additional contact information
Laura D. Scherer: Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
Krithika Suresh: Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
Carmen L. Lewis: Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
Kirsten J. McCaffery: Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
Jolyn Hersch: Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
Joseph N. Cappella: Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
Brad Morse: Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
Channing E. Tate: Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
Bridget S. Mosley: Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
Sarah Schmiege: Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
Marilyn M. Schapira: Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Center for Health Equity Research & Promotion (CHERP), Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2023, vol. 43, issue 7-8, 789-802

Abstract: Purpose Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet some people may react to overdiagnosis with doubt and skepticism. The present research assessed 4 related reactions to overdiagnosis: reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, and source derogation (REDS). The degree to which the concept of overdiagnosis conflicts with participants’ prior beliefs and health messages (information conflict) was also assessed as a potential antecedent of REDS. We developed a scale to assess these reactions, evaluated how those reactions are related, and identified their potential implications for screening decision making. Methods Female participants aged 39 to 49 years read information about overdiagnosis in mammography screening and completed survey questions assessing their reactions to that information. We used a multidimensional theoretical framework to assess dimensionality and overall domain-specific internal consistency of the REDS and Information Conflict questions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed using data randomly split into a training set and test set. Correlations between REDS, screening intentions, and other outcomes were evaluated. Results Five-hundred twenty-five participants completed an online survey. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified that Reactance, Self Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation, and Information Conflict represent unique constructs. A reduced 20-item scale was created by selecting 4 items per construct, which showed good model fit. Reactance, Disbelief, and Source Derogation were associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making and the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant. Conclusions REDS and Information Conflict are distinct but correlated constructs that are common reactions to overdiagnosis. Some of these reactions may have negative implications for making informed screening decisions. Highlights Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet when provided information about overdiagnosis, some people are skeptical. This research developed a measure that assessed different ways in which people might express skepticism about overdiagnosis (reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, source derogation) and also the perception that overdiagnosis conflicts with prior knowledge and health messages (information conflict). These different reactions are distinct but correlated and are common reactions when people learn about overdiagnosis. Reactance, disbelief, and source derogation are associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making as well as the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant.

Keywords: overdiagnosis; breast cancer screening; decision-making; skepticism; disbelief (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231195603 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:7-8:p:789-802

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231195603

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().