Pros & cons

RQ1: Volume, characteristics and content

Range pros cons per article and average (sd)

## [1] "The range of pros and cons per article is"

## [1]  1 54

## [1] "The mean is"

## [1] 4.074144

## [1] "The standard deviation is"

## [1] 5.045716

Frequencies pros and cons

Positive or negative

procon_valence	n	perc
Negative	1079	50.35
Positive	1064	49.65

Current or innovation

procon_method	n	perc
Current	1875	87.49
Innovation	268	12.51

Aspect type

type_aspect	n	perc
Physical impact	195	9.10
Psychological context	193	9.01
Screening criteria	1144	53.38
Screening organization	611	28.51

RQ2 Changes over time

Pros and cons

Per year

Per quarter

Type of arguments

Per year

Per quarter

< p > Hier staat tekst

RQ3: Contextualization

Pro/con vs. current/innov

Are current measures framed differently from screening innovations?

Freqs

	Con		Pro
	n	%	n	%
Current	977	90.55	898	84.4
Innovation	102	9.45	166	15.6

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data:  df$procon_method and df$procon_valence
## X-squared = 17.95, df = 1, p-value = 2.267e-05

##                 df$procon_valence
## df$procon_method  Negative  Positive
##       Current     1.072003 -1.079533
##       Innovation -2.835498  2.855415

Pro/con vs. aspect type

Are pros more common for some types of arguments (e.g. effectivess) and cons for others (e.g. psychological)?

Freqs

	Con		Pro
	n	%	n	%
Physical impact	148	13.72	47	4.42
Psychological context	150	13.90	43	4.04
Screening criteria	373	34.57	771	72.46
Screening organization	408	37.81	203	19.08

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df$type_aspect and df$procon_valence
## X-squared = 318.79, df = 3, p-value < 2.2e-16

##                         df$procon_valence
## df$type_aspect            Negative  Positive
##   Physical impact         5.027654 -5.062969
##   Psychological context   5.358676 -5.396316
##   Screening criteria     -8.458461  8.517875
##   Screening organization  5.721996 -5.762188

RQ4: Differences between screening types

Pros and cons per screening

All screening types

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon		Lung		Prostate
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Negative	165	48.67	351	44.15	293	51.58	17	45.95	104	68.42
Positive	174	51.33	444	55.85	275	48.42	20	54.05	48	31.58

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_ctype$procon_valence and df_ctype$cancer_type
## X-squared = 32.064, df = 4, p-value = 1.856e-06

##                        df_ctype$cancer_type
## df_ctype$procon_valence Baarmoederhalskanker Borstkanker Darmkanker Longkanker
##                Negative           -0.1333104  -2.0221003  0.8170437 -0.2805411
##                Positive            0.1311426   1.9892184 -0.8037576  0.2759791
##                        df_ctype$cancer_type
## df_ctype$procon_valence Prostaatkanker
##                Negative      3.3825756
##                Positive     -3.3275707

BVO only

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Negative	165	48.67	351	44.15	293	51.58
Positive	174	51.33	444	55.85	275	48.42

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_current$procon_valence and df_current$cancer_type
## X-squared = 7.5613, df = 2, p-value = 0.02281

##                          df_current$cancer_type
## df_current$procon_valence Baarmoederhalskanker Borstkanker Darmkanker
##                  Negative            0.3045131  -1.3828720  1.4007793
##                  Positive           -0.2898375   1.3162261 -1.3332704

BVO vs. new

Freqs

	BVO		Under debate
	n	%	n	%
Negative	809	47.53	121	64.02
Positive	893	52.47	68	35.98

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data:  df_binary$procon_valence and df_binary$cancer_binary
## X-squared = 17.851, df = 1, p-value = 2.389e-05

##                         df_binary$cancer_binary
## df_binary$procon_valence        BVO Under debate
##                 Negative -0.9694930    2.9093339
##                 Positive  0.9537279   -2.8620245

Current vs. innovation per screening

All screening types

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon		Lung		Prostate
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Current	325	95.87	679	85.41	508	89.44	32	86.49	134	88.16
Innovation	14	4.13	116	14.59	60	10.56	5	13.51	18	11.84

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_ctype$procon_method and df_ctype$cancer_type
## X-squared = 26.585, df = 4, p-value = 2.412e-05

##                       df_ctype$cancer_type
## df_ctype$procon_method Baarmoederhalskanker Borstkanker  Darmkanker  Longkanker
##             Current              1.39440233 -0.99592598  0.17722822 -0.14526538
##             Innovation          -3.91376077  2.79533099 -0.49743811  0.40772590
##                       df_ctype$cancer_type
## df_ctype$procon_method Prostaatkanker
##             Current       -0.07567762
##             Innovation     0.21240936

BVO only

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Current	325	95.87	679	85.41	508	89.44
Innovation	14	4.13	116	14.59	60	10.56

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_current$procon_method and df_current$cancer_type
## X-squared = 26.536, df = 2, p-value = 1.729e-06

##                         df_current$cancer_type
## df_current$procon_method Baarmoederhalskanker Borstkanker Darmkanker
##               Current               1.3739721  -1.0254400  0.1517044
##               Innovation           -3.8759398   2.8927395 -0.4279542

BVO vs. new

Freqs

	BVO		Under debate
	n	%	n	%
Current	1512	88.84	166	87.83
Innovation	190	11.16	23	12.17

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data:  df_binary$procon_method and df_binary$cancer_binary
## X-squared = 0.08629, df = 1, p-value = 0.7689

##                        df_binary$cancer_binary
## df_binary$procon_method         BVO Under debate
##              Current     0.04403388  -0.13214048
##              Innovation -0.12359280   0.37088737

Type of aspect per screening

All screening types

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon		Lung		Prostate
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Physical impact	19	5.60	92	11.57	45	7.92	2	5.41	20	13.16
Psychological context	47	13.86	48	6.04	48	8.45	6	16.22	31	20.39
Screening criteria	130	38.35	425	53.46	315	55.46	23	62.16	92	60.53
Screening organization	143	42.18	230	28.93	160	28.17	6	16.22	9	5.92

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_ctype$type_aspect and df_ctype$cancer_type
## X-squared = 118.66, df = 12, p-value < 2.2e-16

##                         df_ctype$cancer_type
## df_ctype$type_aspect     Baarmoederhalskanker Borstkanker  Darmkanker
##   Physical impact                 -2.28541744  1.98443073 -1.15780194
##   Psychological context            2.59329832 -3.18127895 -0.82505510
##   Screening criteria              -3.50540523  0.53532777  1.11247569
##   Screening organization           4.51590600 -0.02543333 -0.35876385
##                         df_ctype$cancer_type
## df_ctype$type_aspect      Longkanker Prostaatkanker
##   Physical impact        -0.79455027     1.50486011
##   Psychological context   1.32044223     4.34609340
##   Screening criteria      0.84898722     1.44132489
##   Screening organization -1.44216368    -5.28086426

BVO only

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Physical impact	19	5.60	92	11.57	45	7.92
Psychological context	47	13.86	48	6.04	48	8.45
Screening criteria	130	38.35	425	53.46	315	55.46
Screening organization	143	42.18	230	28.93	160	28.17

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_current$type_aspect and df_current$cancer_type
## X-squared = 57.784, df = 6, p-value = 1.267e-10

##                         df_current$cancer_type
## df_current$type_aspect   Baarmoederhalskanker Borstkanker  Darmkanker
##   Physical impact                 -2.16563548  2.24136252 -0.97862421
##   Psychological context            3.46974234 -2.29969003  0.04014394
##   Screening criteria              -3.28814845  0.92392410  1.44718948
##   Screening organization           3.57534029 -1.20181966 -1.34028995

BVO vs. new

Freqs

	BVO		Under debate
	n	%	n	%
Physical impact	156	9.17	22	11.64
Psychological context	143	8.40	37	19.58
Screening criteria	870	51.12	115	60.85
Screening organization	533	31.32	15	7.94

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_binary$type_aspect and df_binary$cancer_binary
## X-squared = 58.601, df = 3, p-value = 1.17e-12

##                         df_binary$cancer_binary
## df_binary$type_aspect           BVO Under debate
##   Physical impact        -0.3325658    0.9979905
##   Psychological context  -1.4934850    4.4817717
##   Screening criteria     -0.5559051    1.6682055
##   Screening organization  1.7907809   -5.3739215

Pro or con: BVO vs. debated screening

Screening criteria

Freqs

	BVO		Under debate
	n	%	n	%
Negative	248	28.51	58	50.43
Positive	622	71.49	57	49.57

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data:  df_criteria_bin$procon_valence and df_criteria_bin$cancer_binary
## X-squared = 21.796, df = 1, p-value = 3.032e-06

##                               df_criteria_bin$cancer_binary
## df_criteria_bin$procon_valence        BVO Under debate
##                       Negative -1.3548717    3.7265665
##                       Positive  0.9095446   -2.5016970

Screening organization

Freqs

	BVO		Under debate
	n	%	n	%
Negative	343	64.35	11	73.33
Positive	190	35.65	4	26.67

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data:  df_org_bin$procon_valence and df_org_bin$cancer_binary
## X-squared = 0.19675, df = 1, p-value = 0.6574

##                          df_org_bin$cancer_binary
## df_org_bin$procon_valence         BVO Under debate
##                  Negative -0.07061044   0.42090773
##                  Positive  0.09538272  -0.56857488

Physical impact

Freqs

	BVO		Under debate
	n	%	n	%
Negative	114	73.08	17	77.27
Positive	42	26.92	5	22.73

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data:  df_physical_bin$procon_valence and df_physical_bin$cancer_binary
## X-squared = 0.025482, df = 1, p-value = 0.8732

##                               df_physical_bin$cancer_binary
## df_physical_bin$procon_valence         BVO Under debate
##                       Negative -0.07550132   0.20105066
##                       Positive  0.12604954  -0.33565430

Psychological context

Freqs

	BVO		Under debate
	n	%	n	%
Negative	104	72.73	35	94.59
Positive	39	27.27	2	5.41

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction
##
## data:  df_psychological_bin$procon_valence and df_psychological_bin$cancer_binary
## X-squared = 6.7962, df = 1, p-value = 0.009135

##
##                   BVO Under debate
##   Negative -0.6116763    1.2025104
##   Positive  1.1262561   -2.2141361

Pro or con: BVO

Screening criteria

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Negative	23	17.69	120	28.24	105	33.33
Positive	107	82.31	305	71.76	210	66.67

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_criteria$procon_valence and df_criteria$cancer_type
## X-squared = 11.076, df = 2, p-value = 0.003934

##                           df_criteria$cancer_type
## df_criteria$procon_valence Baarmoederhalskanker Borstkanker  Darmkanker
##                   Negative          -2.30924129 -0.10442875  1.60479329
##                   Positive           1.45814248  0.06594027 -1.01332731

Screening organization

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Negative	92	64.34	139	60.43	112	70
Positive	51	35.66	91	39.57	48	30

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_org$procon_valence and df_org$cancer_type
## X-squared = 3.7634, df = 2, p-value = 0.1523

##                      df_org$cancer_type
## df_org$procon_valence Baarmoederhalskanker  Borstkanker   Darmkanker
##              Negative         -0.002542522 -0.740692597  0.890462885
##              Positive          0.003416134  0.995195179 -1.196426660

Physical impact

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Negative	15	78.95	59	64.13	40	88.89
Positive	4	21.05	33	35.87	5	11.11

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_physical$procon_valence and df_physical$cancer_type
## X-squared = 9.794, df = 2, p-value = 0.007469

##                           df_physical$cancer_type
## df_physical$procon_valence Baarmoederhalskanker Borstkanker Darmkanker
##                   Negative            0.2993352  -1.0038213  1.2408006
##                   Positive           -0.4931573   1.6538045 -2.0442301

Psychological context

Freqs

	Cervical		Breast		Colon
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Negative	35	74.47	33	68.75	36	75
Positive	12	25.53	15	31.25	12	25

Chi-square

##
##  Pearson's Chi-squared test
##
## data:  df_psychological$procon_valence and df_psychological$cancer_type
## X-squared = 0.57962, df = 2, p-value = 0.7484

##           df_psychological$cancer_type
##            Baarmoederhalskanker Borstkanker Darmkanker
##   Negative            0.1399433  -0.3231152  0.1846372
##   Positive           -0.2285265   0.5276449 -0.3015113

Pros_cons

Pros & cons

RQ1: Volume, characteristics and content

Range pros cons per article and average (sd)

Frequencies pros and cons

Positive or negative

Current or innovation

Aspect type

RQ2 Changes over time

Pros and cons

Per year

Per quarter

Type of arguments

Per year

Per quarter

RQ3: Contextualization

Pro/con vs. current/innov

Freqs

Chi-square

Pro/con vs. aspect type

Freqs

Chi-square

RQ4: Differences between screening types

Pros and cons per screening

All screening types

Freqs

Chi-square

BVO only

Freqs

Chi-square

BVO vs. new

Freqs

Chi-square

Current vs. innovation per screening

All screening types

Freqs

Chi-square

BVO only

Freqs

Chi-square

BVO vs. new

Freqs

Chi-square

Type of aspect per screening

All screening types

Freqs

Chi-square

BVO only

Freqs

Chi-square

BVO vs. new

Freqs

Chi-square

Pro or con: BVO vs. debated screening

Screening criteria

Freqs

Chi-square

Screening organization

Freqs

Chi-square

Physical impact

Freqs

Chi-square

Psychological context

Freqs

Chi-square

Pro or con: BVO

Screening criteria

Freqs

Chi-square

Screening organization

Freqs

Chi-square

Physical impact

Freqs

Chi-square

Psychological context

Freqs

Chi-square