Literature DB >> 1789817

Does cholesterol screening result in negative labeling effects? Results of the Massachusetts Model Systems for Blood Cholesterol Screening Project.

S Havas1, J Reisman, L Hsu, L Koumjian.   

Abstract

Several previous studies that looked at the effects of labeling individuals as hypertensive found increases in psychosocial distress, diminished feelings of well-being, or absenteeism. Other studies found no such effects. Thus far, similar studies relating to labeling for high blood cholesterol levels have not been published. The Massachusetts Model Systems for Blood Cholesterol Screening Project investigated whether labeling effects occurred as a result of the community-based screening, education, and referral programs it conducted in Worcester and Lowell. Nine questions concerning perceptions of physical and psychological well-being were asked on a questionnaire given to screening participants. The same questions were asked as part of a follow-up questionnaire given to all individuals identified as having high blood cholesterol levels at one of the screenings. Comparison of the baseline and follow-up results did not demonstrate significant overall negative effects among any age, sex, racial, income, or educational groups. On the contrary, responses to many of the questions revealed small but statistically significant improvements in perceptions of physical and psychological well-being. The absence of negative labeling effects may be attributable to the positive, supportive approach to participant counseling taken by the project.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1789817

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  7 in total

1.  Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: screening and treatment.

Authors:  S Ebrahim; G D Smith; C McCabe; N Payne; M Pickin; T A Sheldon; F Lampe; F Sampson; S Ward; G Wannamthee
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1998-12

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Economic evaluation of cholesterol-related interventions in general practice. An appraisal of the evidence.

Authors:  T van der Weijden; J A Knottnerus; A J Ament; H E Stoffers; R P Grol
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Cholesterol screening and cholesterol lowering treatment.

Authors:  T A Sheldon; F Song; G D Smith; N Freemantle; J Mason; A Long
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1993-06

5.  Health-related quality of life in cardiac patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension.

Authors:  Lyne Lalonde; Annette O'Connor; Lawrence Joseph; Steven A Grover
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Poorer self assessed health in a prospective study of men with screen detected abdominal aortic aneurysm: a predictor or a consequence of screening outcome?

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau; Lois G Kim; Jane Upton; Simon G Thompson; Alan P Scott
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 7.  Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; Eric Crespo
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 2.655

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.