The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enthusiasm for Cancer Screening in the United States
Abstract
CONTEXT: Public health officials, physicians, and disease advocacy groups have worked hard to educate individuals living in the United States about the importance of cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: To determine the public's enthusiasm for early cancer detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Survey using a national telephone interview of adults selected by random digit dialing, conducted from December 2001 through July 2002. Five hundred individuals participated (women aged > or =40 years and men aged > or =50 years; without a history of cancer). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to a survey with 5 modules: a general screening module (eg, value of early detection, total-body computed tomography); and 4 screening test modules: Papanicolaou test; mammography; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test; and sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. RESULTS: Most adults (87%) believe routine cancer screening is almost always a good idea and that finding cancer early saves lives (74% said most or all the time). Less than one third believe that there will be a time when they will stop undergoing routine screening. A substantial proportion believe that an 80-year-old who chose not to be tested was irresponsible: ranging from 41% with regard to mammography to 32% for colonoscopy. Thirty-eight percent of respondents had experienced at least 1 false-positive screening test; more than 40% of these individuals characterized that experience as "very scary" or the "scariest time of my life." Yet, looking back, 98% were glad they had had the initial screening test. Most had a strong desire to know about the presence of cancer regardless of its implications: two thirds said they would want to be tested for cancer even if nothing could be done; and 56% said they would want to be tested for what is sometimes termed pseudodisease (cancers growing so slowly that they would never cause problems during the persons lifetime even if untreated). Seventy-three percent of respondents would prefer to receive a total-body computed tomographic scan instead of receiving 1000 dollars in cash. CONCLUSIONS: The public is enthusiastic about cancer screening. This commitment is not dampened by false-positive test results or the possibility that testing could lead to unnecessary treatment. This enthusiasm creates an environment ripe for the premature diffusion of technologies such as total-body computed tomographic scanning, placing the public at risk of overtesting and overtreatment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?
Gøtzsche, P. C., & Olsen, O. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)06065-1 · Cited by 853
Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography
Olsen, O., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06449-2 · Cited by 710
Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy
Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199304293281706 · Cited by 547
Overdiagnosis: An Underrecognized Cause of Confusion and Harm in Cancer Screening
Black, W. C. (2000) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/92.16.1280 · Cited by 242
Fletcher, S. W. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199704173361612 · Cited by 192
Limitations of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising for Clinical Genetic Testing
Gollust, S. E. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.14.1762 · Cited by 175
Direct-to-Consumer Advertising — Education or Emotion Promotion?
Wolfe, S. M. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200202143460713 · Cited by 152
Risk Communication in Clinical Practice: Putting Cancer in Context
Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., & Welch, H. G. (1999) · JNCI Monographs · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024187 · Cited by 134
Self-citationDirect-to-Consumer Marketing of High-Technology Screening Tests
Lee, T. H.-Y., & Brennan, T. A. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200202143460715 · Cited by 98
Lessons from the Mammography Screening Controversy: Can We Improve the Debate?
Ransohoff, D. F., & Harris, R. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00016 · Cited by 59
Cited by
Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · Cited by 1,336
Self-citationHoffmann, T. C., & Del Mar, C. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016 · Cited by 707
Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy
Moynihan, R., Doust, J., & Henry, D. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e3502 · Cited by 675
Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms
Brewer, N. T., Salz, T., & Lillie, S. E. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00006 · Cited by 455
Bone-Density Testing Interval and Transition to Osteoporosis in Older Women
Gourlay, M. L., Fine, J. P., Preisser, J. S., May, R. C., Li, C., Lui, L.-Y., Ransohoff, D. F., Cauley, J. A., & Ensrud, K. E. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1107142 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Schwartz, L. M.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2004-01-07
- Volume
- 291
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2161362572
- Cited by
- 688
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 20.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Enthusiasm for Cancer Screening in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.291.1.71
- The paper
- Schwartz, L. M. (2004). Enthusiasm for Cancer Screening in the United States. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.1.71
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.