Literature DB >> 14990651

Short-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life.

Jennifer Cullen1, Marc D Schwartz, William F Lawrence, Joe V Selby, Jeanne S Mandelblatt.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: There are few data on the short-term effects of participating in cancer prevention activities, undergoing genetic risk assessment, or having routine screening. The objective of this article is to systematically review existing research on short-term effects of prevention, genetic counseling and testing, and screening activities on quality of life.
METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE search for original research studies that were published between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 2002, and conducted in North America or Western Europe. Data were abstracted and summarized using a standardized format.
RESULTS: We reviewed 210 publications. Most studies focused on psychological states (anxiety, depression), symptoms, or general health status. One hundred thirty-one studies used 51 previously validated noncancer instruments. Many researchers (12.6%) also added cancer-specific measures, such as perceived cancer risk or symptom indices. Only one study measured satisfaction or quality of provider-client communication. While one report examined lost workdays, no other economic consequences of short-term outcomes were evaluated. Among seven studies that assessed short-term outcomes preferences, only four specifically used time trade-off or linear rating scale methods. No study used standard gamble or willingness-to-pay methods. The overwhelming majority of research indicated that short-term effects were transient. Only two studies linked short-term effects to long-term cancer-related health behaviors such as repeat screening.
CONCLUSION: There is considerable heterogeneity in short-term outcome measurement. Clinicians need to be aware of potential for short-term, transient adverse effects. The impact of short-term experiences should to be linked to long-term health status and use of services.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14990651     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.191

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  22 in total

1.  Comparative economic evaluation of data from the ACRIN National CT Colonography Trial with three cancer intervention and surveillance modeling network microsimulations.

Authors:  David J Vanness; Amy B Knudsen; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Carolyn M Rutter; Ilana F Gareen; Benjamin A Herman; Karen M Kuntz; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Eric J Feuer; Mei-Hsiu Chen; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Methods for measuring temporary health States for cost-utility analyses.

Authors:  Davene R Wright; Eve Wittenberg; J Shannon Swan; Rebecca A Miksad; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.

Authors:  Anita L Iyer; M Kate Bundorf; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Pascale-Renée Cyr; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  Initial development of the Temporary Utilities Index: a multiattribute system for classifying the functional health impact of diagnostic testing.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; Jun Ying; James Stahl; Chung Yin Kong; Beverly Moy; Jessica Roy; Elkan Halpern
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  CT scan screening is associated with increased distress among subjects of the APExS.

Authors:  Christophe Paris; Marion Maurel; Amandine Luc; Audrey Stoufflet; Jean-Claude Pairon; Marc Letourneux
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Patient and societal value functions for the testing morbidities index.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; Chung Yin Kong; Janie M Lee; Omosalewa Itauma; Elkan F Halpern; Pablo A Lee; Sergey Vavinskiy; Olubunmi Williams; Emilie S Zoltick; Karen Donelan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Quality of life valuations of mammography screening.

Authors:  Amy E Bonomi; Denise M Boudreau; Paul A Fishman; Evette Ludman; Amy Mohelnitzky; Elizabeth A Cannon; Deb Seger
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Percutaneous breast biopsy: effect on short-term quality of life.

Authors:  Kathryn L Humphrey; Janie M Lee; Karen Donelan; Chung Y Kong; Olubunmi Williams; Omosalewa Itauma; Elkan F Halpern; Beverly J Gerade; Elizabeth A Rafferty; J Shannon Swan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  The effect of immediate reading of screening mammograms on medical care utilization and costs after false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  Kate A Stewart; Peter J Neumann; Suzanne W Fletcher; Mary B Barton
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Long-Term Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the United States.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; William E Barlow; Elizabeth S Burnside; Emily F Conant; John M Hampton; Hui Huang; Karla Kerlikowske; Sandra J Lee; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Martin J Yaffe; Natasha K Stout
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.