Literature DB >> 20556876

Waiting is the hardest part: anticipating medical test results affects processing and recall of important information.

David B Portnoy1.   

Abstract

Waiting for medical test results that signal physical harm can be a stressful and potentially psychologically harmful experience. Despite this, interventionists and physicians often use this wait time to deliver behavior change messages and other important information about the test, possible results and its implications. This study examined how "bracing" for a medical test result impacts cognitive processing, as well as recall of information delivered during this period. Healthy U.S. university students (N = 150) were tested for a deficiency of a fictitious saliva biomarker that was said to be predictive of long-term health problems using a 2 (Test Result) x 2 (Expected immediacy of result: 10 min, 1 month) factorial design. Participants expecting to get the test result shortly should have been bracing for the result. While waiting for the test results participants completed measures of cognitive processing. After participants received the test result, recall of information about the biomarker was tested in addition to cognitive measures. One week later, participants who were originally told they did not have the deficiency had their recall assessed again. Results showed that anticipating an imminent test result increased cognitive distraction in the processing of information and lowered recall of information about the test and the biomarker. These results suggest that delivering critical information to patients after administering a test and immediately before giving the results may not be optimal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20556876     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  10 in total

1.  Waiting for Test Results.

Authors:  Herbert L Fred
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2019-02-01

2.  Is waiting bad for subjective health?

Authors:  Jennifer L Howell; Kate Sweeny
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2016-03-11

3.  Cancer patient perceptions about biobanking and preferred timing of consent.

Authors:  Kathryn L Braun; Joann U Tsark; Amy Powers; Kristen Croom; Robert Kim; Francine C Gachupin; Paul Morris
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.300

4.  What are the keys to a longer, happier life? Answers from five decades of health psychology research.

Authors:  Blair T Johnson; Rebecca L Acabchuk
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2017-11-04       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Comparison of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy by Electrocardiography and Echocardiography in Children Using Analytics Tool.

Authors:  Lauren Tague; Justin Wiggs; Qianxi Li; Robert McCarter; Elizabeth Sherwin; Jacqueline Weinberg; Craig Sable
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 1.655

Review 6.  Distress and adjustment among adolescents and young adults with cancer: an empirical and conceptual review.

Authors:  Ursula M Sansom-Daly; Claire E Wakefield
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2013-10

7.  A feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial of the Positive Reappraisal Coping Intervention, a novel supportive technique for recurrent miscarriage.

Authors:  Sarah Bailey; Chris Bailey; Jacky Boivin; Ying Cheong; Isabel Reading; Nick Macklon
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Consumers attitudes and beliefs towards the receipt of antenatal corticosteroids and use of clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  E L McGoldrick; T Crawford; J A Brown; K M Groom; C A Crowther
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-09-05       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Communication and patient participation influencing patient recall of treatment discussions.

Authors:  Claude Richard; Emma Glaser; Marie-Thérèse Lussier
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Women's perspectives of the fetal fibronectin testing process: a qualitative descriptive study.

Authors:  Wendy E Peterson; Ann E Sprague; Jessica Reszel; Mark Walker; Deshayne B Fell; Sherry L Perkins; Sandra I Dunn; Moya Johnson
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 3.007

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.