OBJECTIVE: To assess the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impact of cervical cancer screening in women with normal test results. DESIGN: Questionnaire study. SETTING: Maastricht, the Netherlands. POPULATION: A cohort of 789 women were followed from screening invitation until after the receipt of screening results. A female age-matched reference group (n=567) was included. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to the home address of the women before screening, after screening, and again with the screening results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Generic HRQoL (SF-12, EQ-5D), generic anxiety (STAI-6), screen-specific anxiety (PCQ), and potential symptoms and feelings related to the smear-taking procedure. RESULTS: A total of 60% of screening participants completed questionnaire 1(n=924): 803 of these women granted permission to access their files; 789 of these 803 women had normal test results (Pap 1), and were included in the analyses. Generic HRQoL (SF-12, EQ-5D) and anxiety (STAI-6) scores were similar in the study and reference groups. Before screening, after screening, and also after the receipt of test results, screening participants reported less screen-specific anxiety (PCQ, P<0.001) than the reference group (n=567), with differences indicating clinical relevance. 19% of screening participants were bothered by feelings of shame, pain, inconvenience, or nervousness during smear taking, and 8 and 5% of women experienced lower abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, discharge, or urinary problems for 2-3 and 4-7 days, respectively, following the Pap smear. CONCLUSION: The reduced levels of screen-specific anxiety in screening participants, possibly indicating reassurance, are worthwhile addressing in more depth. We conclude that although considerable numbers of women reported unpleasant effects, there were no adverse HRQoL consequences of cervical screening in women with normal test results.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impact of cervical cancer screening in women with normal test results. DESIGN: Questionnaire study. SETTING: Maastricht, the Netherlands. POPULATION: A cohort of 789 women were followed from screening invitation until after the receipt of screening results. A female age-matched reference group (n=567) was included. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to the home address of the women before screening, after screening, and again with the screening results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Generic HRQoL (SF-12, EQ-5D), generic anxiety (STAI-6), screen-specific anxiety (PCQ), and potential symptoms and feelings related to the smear-taking procedure. RESULTS: A total of 60% of screening participants completed questionnaire 1(n=924): 803 of these women granted permission to access their files; 789 of these 803 women had normal test results (Pap 1), and were included in the analyses. Generic HRQoL (SF-12, EQ-5D) and anxiety (STAI-6) scores were similar in the study and reference groups. Before screening, after screening, and also after the receipt of test results, screening participants reported less screen-specific anxiety (PCQ, P<0.001) than the reference group (n=567), with differences indicating clinical relevance. 19% of screening participants were bothered by feelings of shame, pain, inconvenience, or nervousness during smear taking, and 8 and 5% of women experienced lower abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, discharge, or urinary problems for 2-3 and 4-7 days, respectively, following the Pap smear. CONCLUSION: The reduced levels of screen-specific anxiety in screening participants, possibly indicating reassurance, are worthwhile addressing in more depth. We conclude that although considerable numbers of women reported unpleasant effects, there were no adverse HRQoL consequences of cervical screening in women with normal test results.
Authors: A Ó Céilleachair; J F O'Mahony; M O'Connor; J O'Leary; C Normand; C Martin; L Sharp Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Dik Habbema; Sheila Weinmann; Marc Arbyn; Aruna Kamineni; Andrew E Williams; Inge M C M de Kok; Folkert van Kemenade; Terry S Field; Joost van Rosmalen; Martin L Brown Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Kieran Rothnie; Seonaidh C Cotton; Shona Fielding; Nicola M Gray; Julian Little; Margaret E Cruickshank; Leslie G Walker; Mark Avis; Linda Sharp Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2014 Impact factor: 3.186