Literature DB >> 14670217

The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review.

C R Bankhead1, J Brett, C Bukach, P Webster, S Stewart-Brown, M Munafo, J Austoker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To carry out a systematic review to examine the effects of cholesterol, breast and cervical cancer screening on actual or intended health-promoting behaviours and health-related beliefs. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic databases (between 1980 and 2000). REVIEW
METHODS: All English language studies that investigated the impact of cholesterol, breast and cervical screening programmes on health-promoting behaviours and beliefs were assessed for inclusion. The data extraction form and quality assessment criteria were developed using the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines. Data were extracted and a non-quantitative synthesis was conducted. Reviewers categorised the outcomes into those that could be considered beneficial or detrimental to health. This categorisation was based on a value judgement that considered both statistical and clinical significance.
RESULTS: The cholesterol studies used prospective designs more frequently, possibly as many focused on observing changes in lifestyle following screening. Participants who went for breast or cervical screening were not offered advice on lifestyle changes and most of the research into cancer screening programmes investigated issues related to uptake of screening services, explanations of why people are or are not screened and interventions to improve uptake. All three screening programmes are associated with high levels of favourable health behaviours and beliefs that have been measured, although there is evidence that recommended follow-up after screening is often not adhered to. There was no literature on the cost-effectiveness regarding the wider implications of screening (only on reduction of disease-specific mortality/morbidity), possibly due to the outcomes being very broad and not easily categorised and classified.
CONCLUSIONS: The studies reviewed suggest that cholesterol screening had a positive effect on health behaviours, although participation was voluntary and those screened were possibly more motivated to make changes. These results are therefore not generalisable to the entire population and other factors need to be taken into account. Reduction in blood cholesterol levels was reported in all but two of the studies that assessed this outcome, suggesting that successful lifestyle changes were made. However, as most of the studies only reported follow-up of those screened, some of the reduction can be attributable to regression to the mean. Whether breast and cervical screening affect future health behaviours and beliefs has not been directly measured in many studies and few studies have collected baseline measures. However, evidence suggests that women who attend breast and cervical screening once are likely to reattend and attendance is associated with several positive health behaviours, although it cannot be confirmed whether the associations observed were a result of screening or because these women have a certain set of health behaviours and beliefs irrespective of their experience of screening. Areas of further research include: measuring a much wider range of behaviours and beliefs before and after screening is accepted or declined, examining the subgroup of participants who receive 'desirable' results and the impact of this on health beliefs and health-promoting behaviour, and qualitative research into the experiences of screening and how this interacts with knowledge and beliefs about other aspects of health.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14670217     DOI: 10.3310/hta7420

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  21 in total

1.  A church-based pilot study designed to improve dietary quality for rural, lower Mississippi Delta, African American adults.

Authors:  Lisa M Tussing-Humphreys; Jessica L Thomson; Stephen J Onufrak
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2015-04

2.  How could disclosing incidental information from whole-genome sequencing affect patient behavior?

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; Robert C Green
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.512

3.  Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in evidence-based patient information.

Authors:  Megan R Goldsmith; Clare R Bankhead; Joan Austoker
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Randomised controlled trial of the effects of physical activity feedback on awareness and behaviour in UK adults: the FAB study protocol [ISRCTN92551397].

Authors:  Clare Watkinson; Esther M F van Sluijs; Stephen Sutton; Theresa Marteau; Simon J Griffin
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Long-term effect of population screening for diabetes on cardiovascular morbidity, self-rated health, and health behavior.

Authors:  Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui; Rebecca K Simmons; A Toby Prevost; Kate M Williams; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Nicholas J Wareham; Simon J Griffin
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 5.166

6.  Short-term change in body mass index in overweight adolescents following cholesterol screening.

Authors:  Nipa Doshi; Eliana M Perrin; Suzanne Lazorick; Denise Esserman; Michael J Steiner
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2009-09

7.  Screening for high hip fracture risk does not impact on falls risk: a post hoc analysis from the SCOOP study.

Authors:  C I Condurache; S Chiu; P Chotiyarnwong; H Johansson; L Shepstone; E Lenaghan; C Cooper; S Clarke; R F S Khioe; R Fordham; N Gittoes; I Harvey; N C Harvey; A Heawood; R Holland; A Howe; J A Kanis; T Marshall; T W O'Neill; T J Peters; N M Redmond; D Torgerson; D Turner; E McCloskey
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT.

Authors:  Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Julia Wade; Sian Noble; Kirsty Garfield; Grace Young; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Jane Blazeby; Richard Bryant; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Owen Hughes; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Edgar Paez; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek Rosario; Edward Rowe; David Neal
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 9.  Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura Camilloni; Eliana Ferroni; Beatriz Jimenez Cendales; Annamaria Pezzarossi; Giacomo Furnari; Piero Borgia; Gabriella Guasticchi; Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Regression toward the mean--a detection method for unknown population mean based on Mee and Chua's algorithm.

Authors:  Thomas Ostermann; Stefan N Willich; Rainer Lüdtke
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-08-07       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.