BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In families with > or =2 relatives with intracranial aneurysms (IAs), screening for IAs in asymptomatic first-degree relatives is often recommended. We assessed the long-term psychosocial impact of such screening. METHODS: We identified all persons with IA (screen-positives) and matched them for age and sex with 2 controls without IA (screen-negatives) from hospital-based registers of familial IA. Persons underwent telephone interviews using questionnaires that covered the areas of psychosocial impact of screening, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mood. Data were compared between screen-positives and screen-negatives, and with reference populations. RESULTS: Overall, 105 persons from 33 families with IA were included, of whom 35 were screen-positive and 70 were screen-negative. Of the screen-positives, 12 (44%) had reduced their work and 23 (66%) had experienced changes in > or =1 area of independence, self-esteem, future outlook, or personal relationships. In contrast, only 1 (2%) screen-negative person had stopped working and 12 (17%) others had experienced changes in their self-esteem, future outlook, or relationships. Screen-positives had lower HRQoL compared with screen-negatives and the reference population, whereas both screen groups had higher mean depression scores than the reference population. Despite these effects, only 3 persons regretted participating in screening. CONCLUSIONS: Although screening for IA is an important preventative strategy in high-risk individuals, it is associated with considerable psychosocial effects, both positive and negative. Greater awareness of such outcomes, and appropriate intervention where necessary, would appear to be a necessary component of IA screening programs.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In families with > or =2 relatives with intracranial aneurysms (IAs), screening for IAs in asymptomatic first-degree relatives is often recommended. We assessed the long-term psychosocial impact of such screening. METHODS: We identified all persons with IA (screen-positives) and matched them for age and sex with 2 controls without IA (screen-negatives) from hospital-based registers of familial IA. Persons underwent telephone interviews using questionnaires that covered the areas of psychosocial impact of screening, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mood. Data were compared between screen-positives and screen-negatives, and with reference populations. RESULTS: Overall, 105 persons from 33 families with IA were included, of whom 35 were screen-positive and 70 were screen-negative. Of the screen-positives, 12 (44%) had reduced their work and 23 (66%) had experienced changes in > or =1 area of independence, self-esteem, future outlook, or personal relationships. In contrast, only 1 (2%) screen-negative person had stopped working and 12 (17%) others had experienced changes in their self-esteem, future outlook, or relationships. Screen-positives had lower HRQoL compared with screen-negatives and the reference population, whereas both screen groups had higher mean depression scores than the reference population. Despite these effects, only 3 persons regretted participating in screening. CONCLUSIONS: Although screening for IA is an important preventative strategy in high-risk individuals, it is associated with considerable psychosocial effects, both positive and negative. Greater awareness of such outcomes, and appropriate intervention where necessary, would appear to be a necessary component of IA screening programs.