Literature DB >> 1403996

The psychological costs of screening for cancer.

J Wardle1, R Pope.   

Abstract

The benefits of cancer screening programmes accrue to those who have cancer or identifiable precancerous conditions, and in whom the disease progression is slowed or halted by earlier intervention. The costs accrue to the rest of the population for whom there is no direct benefit to health. Attention has been given to the medical risks of screening procedures and to the economic costs, but there has been very little regard paid to the psychological costs. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the psychological impact of screening. Screening participants who are found to have untreatable disease, or for whom the interventions prove ineffective, have a greater proportion of their life as a cancer patient with all the associated psychological (and perhaps physical) distress, but no increase in their life expectancy. Those who receive false positive results may experience acute psychological distress produced by the prospect of a grave diagnosis before they are found to be free from serious disease. Even the procedure of screening itself, with the disturbance of the invitation, the discomfort of the tests and the wait for the diagnosis, can have a significant impact upon some patients. This paper evaluates the psychological costs which may be involved across the whole screening procedure, from the possible alarm of receiving an invitation to participate in screening, to the trauma of a cancer diagnosis for someone who had been unaware of any symptoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1403996     DOI: 10.1016/0022-3999(92)90051-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psychosom Res        ISSN: 0022-3999            Impact factor:   3.006


  18 in total

1.  Does publicity about cancer screening raise fear of cancer? Randomised trial of the psychological effect of information about cancer screening.

Authors:  J Wardle; T Taylor; S Sutton; W Atkin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-10-16

2.  The role of non-directiveness in genetic counseling.

Authors:  Fuat S Oduncu
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2002

3.  Use of electronic health record data to evaluate overuse of cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Jason S Mathias; Dana Gossett; David W Baker
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  "What does this mean?" How Web-based consumer health information fails to support information seeking in the pursuit of informed consent for screening test decisions.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Burkell; D Grant Campbell
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2005-07

Review 5.  Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 3. Physical, psychological and social harm.

Authors:  K G Marshall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-07-15       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Demographic, clinical, dispositional, and social-environmental characteristics associated with psychological response to a false positive ovarian cancer screening test: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-10-25

7.  Screening for neuroblastoma.

Authors:  M H Duncan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-01-09

8.  Distressed or relieved? Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening in The Netherlands.

Authors:  W Scaf-Klomp; R Sanderman; H B van de Wiel; R Otter; W J van den Heuvel
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes associated with a false positive ovarian cancer screening test result.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-04-21

10.  Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England.

Authors:  S Sutton; G Saidi; G Bickler; J Hunter
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.