A new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll shows – according to a HealthDay story:
66 percent of women in their 40s hadn’t even heard about the US Preventive Services Task Force’s revised recommendations from November 2009 raising questions about the tradeoffs involved in mammography for women in their 40s.
About 11 percent of women said they believe mammograms should start in the 20s, even for women with no risk factors, while 29 percent believe mammograms should start in their 30s.
45 percent of the women polled said the task force pushed back the recommended age to 50 to reduce health-care costs and avoid administering unnecessary tests.
Dr. Diana Petitti, former vice chair of the task force and a professor of biomedical informatics at Arizona State University, told HealthDay:
“That is sobering. There is evidence of great misperceptions about what mammogram might yield for a woman who is young.”
The HealthDay story claims that “the complete findings of the poll are available at Harris Interactive” and that “full data on the poll and its methodology are also available at Harris Interactive.” But as we post this entry, we could not find any of this information on the Harris site at the links provided by HealthDay.
Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society writes on his blog:
“I am sitting here wringing my hands that so much has been made of some studies reported yesterday at a major radiology conference which suggest that the impact of the breast cancer screening guidelines released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in November 2009 has either been good or bad on doctor and patient behavior.
…
…much is being made of these studies, as though they have some definitive answer to the questions they raised. In my opinion, they don’t.”
Many imbalanced, misinforming public messages fed this confusion – including many news stories that failed to challenge claims that cost-cutting and rationing were the Task Force’s motivations.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
“A new STAT analysis shows the effort has been marked by disorder and disorganization, with huge financial resources wasted...If the goal was to optimize the likelihood of figuring out the best treatment options, the system is off course” https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/06/data-show-panic-and-disorganization-dominate-the-study-of-covid-19-drugs/
For breakfast, @GarySchwitzer swallows 2 observational studies with an anti-irritant chaser. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/#.XvtqMk8i5e8.twitter
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Julie Huang
May 4, 2011 at 12:06 pmThank you for writing about this. I follow healthcare and this was not on my radar.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like