Literature DB >> 10574231

Psychological impact of predicting individuals' risks of illness: a systematic review.

C Shaw1, K Abrams, T M Marteau.   

Abstract

The aim of this review is to determine the frequency and circumstances under which predicting individuals' risk of illness has adverse psychological effects. Using systematic review methodology, the literature was searched for studies that had assessed the adverse psychological outcomes of risk assessment programmes. The outcomes investigated are emotional (anxiety, depression, distress) cognitive (intrusive thoughts, perceptions of health) and behaviour (work absenteeism). The impact of both positive and negative test results are summarised in terms of the number of studies showing significant effects between and within groups in the short (one month or less) and longer term (more than one month). Where sufficient data were available, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess effect size. Fifty-four studies met the criteria for inclusion. The studies assessed the impact of informing individuals about cardiovascular risk (21), risk of AIDS (eight), risk of cancer (10), risk of Huntington's disease (10), risk of diabetes (two), risk of spinocerebellar ataxia (one) and risk of osteoporosis (two). Overall, the quality of studies assessed was limited, with only two using a randomised design to determine the psychological impact of risk assessment. Receiving a positive test result was associated in the short term in the great majority of studies with depression, anxiety, poorer perceptions of health and psychological distress. Data were available for a quantitative synthesis of results on three outcomes, anxiety, depression and distress. Anxiety and depression were significantly higher in those tested positive compared with those tested negative in the short term but not the longer term. Distress could only be assessed in the longer term: there was no evidence of an increase for those receiving positive test results. The five experimental studies that reported interventions aimed at preventing some of these adverse effects all reported favourable results. There was little evidence of any adverse psychological effects of receiving an unfavourable test result. Adverse psychological effects are a common immediate consequence of positive test results following risk assessment. Results from the few experimental studies reviewed suggest that these adverse outcomes should not be seen as inevitable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10574231     DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00244-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  51 in total

Review 1.  Genetic risk and behavioural change.

Authors:  T M Marteau; C Lerman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-28

2.  Should we abandon the concept of giving patients "positive" and "negative" screening results? Yes: this dichotomy can be misleading.

Authors:  E Goyder
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2001-06

Review 3.  Should we screen for type 2 diabetes? Evaluation against National Screening Committee criteria.

Authors:  N J Wareham; S J Griffin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-21

4.  Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau; Ann Louise Kinmonth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-07-13

Review 5.  Methodology in longitudinal studies on psychological effects of predictive DNA testing: a review.

Authors:  R Timman; T Stijnen; A Tibben
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 6.318

6.  To test or not to test? Moderators of the relationship between risk perceptions and interest in predictive genetic testing.

Authors:  Shoshana Shiloh; Shiri Ilan
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2005-09-30

Review 7.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Screening for aortic aneurysm: Detection is not as harmful as it might seem.

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-03

9.  Family Communication in Inherited Cardiovascular Conditions in Ireland.

Authors:  Sinead Whyte; Andrew Green; Marion McAllister; Hannah Shipman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 10.  Impact of genetic risk assessment on nutrition-related lifestyle behaviours.

Authors:  Jacqueline A Vernarelli
Journal:  Proc Nutr Soc       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 6.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.