OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the psychosocial impact and subjective interpretation of communicated incide ntal findings from whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (wb-MRI). This was addressed with this general population study. METHODS: Data was based on the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP), Germany. SHIP comprised a 1.5-T wb-MRI examination. A postal survey was conducted among the first 471 participants, aged 23-84 years, who received a notification about incidental findings (response 86.0 %, n = 405). The severity of incidental findings was assessed from the participants' and radiologists' perspective. RESULTS: In total, 394 participants (97.3 %) wanted to learn about their health by undergoing wb-MRI. Strong distress while waiting for a potential notification of an incidental finding was reported by 40 participants (9.9 %), whereas 116 (28.6 %) reported moderate to severe psychological distress thereafter. Strong disagreement was noted between the subjective and radiological evaluation of the findings' severity (kappa = 0.02). Almost all participants (n = 389, 96.0 %) were very satisfied with their examination. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high satisfaction of most participants, there were numerous adverse consequences concerning the communication of incidental findings and false expectations about the likely potential benefits of whole-body-MRI. KEY POINTS: • Disclosed incidental findings from MRI may lead to substantial psychosocial distress. • Subjective and radiological evaluations of incidental findings' severity differ strongly. • Disclosing incidental findings is strongly endorsed by study volunteers. • Study volunteers tend to have false expectations about potential benefits from MRI. • Minimizing stress in study volunteers should be a key aim in MRI research.
OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the psychosocial impact and subjective interpretation of communicated incide ntal findings from whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (wb-MRI). This was addressed with this general population study. METHODS: Data was based on the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP), Germany. SHIP comprised a 1.5-T wb-MRI examination. A postal survey was conducted among the first 471 participants, aged 23-84 years, who received a notification about incidental findings (response 86.0 %, n = 405). The severity of incidental findings was assessed from the participants' and radiologists' perspective. RESULTS: In total, 394 participants (97.3 %) wanted to learn about their health by undergoing wb-MRI. Strong distress while waiting for a potential notification of an incidental finding was reported by 40 participants (9.9 %), whereas 116 (28.6 %) reported moderate to severe psychological distress thereafter. Strong disagreement was noted between the subjective and radiological evaluation of the findings' severity (kappa = 0.02). Almost all participants (n = 389, 96.0 %) were very satisfied with their examination. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high satisfaction of most participants, there were numerous adverse consequences concerning the communication of incidental findings and false expectations about the likely potential benefits of whole-body-MRI. KEY POINTS: • Disclosed incidental findings from MRI may lead to substantial psychosocial distress. • Subjective and radiological evaluations of incidental findings' severity differ strongly. • Disclosing incidental findings is strongly endorsed by study volunteers. • Study volunteers tend to have false expectations about potential benefits from MRI. • Minimizing stress in study volunteers should be a key aim in MRI research.
Authors: Sanjiv Kumra; Manzar Ashtari; Britt Anderson; Kelly L Cervellione; L I Kan Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: J Illes; M P Kirschen; E Edwards; P Bandettini; M K Cho; P J Ford; G H Glover; J Kulynych; R Macklin; D B Michael; S M Wolf; T Grabowski; B Seto Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Henry Völzke; Dietrich Alte; Carsten Oliver Schmidt; Dörte Radke; Roberto Lorbeer; Nele Friedrich; Nicole Aumann; Katharina Lau; Michael Piontek; Gabriele Born; Christoph Havemann; Till Ittermann; Sabine Schipf; Robin Haring; Sebastian E Baumeister; Henri Wallaschofski; Matthias Nauck; Stephanie Frick; Andreas Arnold; Michael Jünger; Julia Mayerle; Matthias Kraft; Markus M Lerch; Marcus Dörr; Thorsten Reffelmann; Klaus Empen; Stephan B Felix; Anne Obst; Beate Koch; Sven Gläser; Ralf Ewert; Ingo Fietze; Thomas Penzel; Martina Dören; Wolfgang Rathmann; Johannes Haerting; Mario Hannemann; Jürgen Röpcke; Ulf Schminke; Clemens Jürgens; Frank Tost; Rainer Rettig; Jan A Kors; Saskia Ungerer; Katrin Hegenscheid; Jens-Peter Kühn; Julia Kühn; Norbert Hosten; Ralf Puls; Jörg Henke; Oliver Gloger; Alexander Teumer; Georg Homuth; Uwe Völker; Christian Schwahn; Birte Holtfreter; Ines Polzer; Thomas Kohlmann; Hans J Grabe; Dieter Rosskopf; Heyo K Kroemer; Thomas Kocher; Reiner Biffar; Ulrich John; Wolfgang Hoffmann Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2010-02-18 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: J M Shoemaker; M T Holdsworth; C Aine; V D Calhoun; R de La Garza; S W Feldstein Ewing; R Hayek; A R Mayer; K A Kiehl; L E Petree; P Sanjuan; A Scott; J Stephen; J P Phillips Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Rob McCarney; James Warner; Steve Iliffe; Robbert van Haselen; Mark Griffin; Peter Fisher Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-07-03 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Carsten Oliver Schmidt; Elizabeth Sierocinski; Katrin Hegenscheid; Sebastian E Baumeister; Hans J Grabe; Henry Völzke Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Hans J Grabe; Heinrich Assel; Thomas Bahls; Marcus Dörr; Karlhans Endlich; Nicole Endlich; Pia Erdmann; Ralf Ewert; Stephan B Felix; Beate Fiene; Tobias Fischer; Steffen Flessa; Nele Friedrich; Mariacarla Gadebusch-Bondio; Manuela Gesell Salazar; Elke Hammer; Robin Haring; Christoph Havemann; Michael Hecker; Wolfgang Hoffmann; Birte Holtfreter; Tim Kacprowski; Kathleen Klein; Thomas Kocher; Holger Kock; Janina Krafczyk; Jana Kuhn; Martin Langanke; Uwe Lendeckel; Markus M Lerch; Wolfgang Lieb; Roberto Lorbeer; Julia Mayerle; Konrad Meissner; Henriette Meyer zu Schwabedissen; Matthias Nauck; Konrad Ott; Wolfgang Rathmann; Rainer Rettig; Claudia Richardt; Karen Saljé; Ulf Schminke; Andrea Schulz; Matthias Schwab; Werner Siegmund; Sylvia Stracke; Karsten Suhre; Marius Ueffing; Saskia Ungerer; Uwe Völker; Henry Völzke; Henri Wallaschofski; Vivian Werner; Marek T Zygmunt; Heyo K Kroemer Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Svenja Caspers; Susanne Moebus; Silke Lux; Noreen Pundt; Holger Schütz; Thomas W Mühleisen; Vincent Gras; Simon B Eickhoff; Sandro Romanzetti; Tony Stöcker; Rüdiger Stirnberg; Mehmet E Kirlangic; Martina Minnerop; Peter Pieperhoff; Ulrich Mödder; Samir Das; Alan C Evans; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Raimund Erbel; Sven Cichon; Markus M Nöthen; Dieter Sturma; Andreas Bauer; N Jon Shah; Karl Zilles; Katrin Amunts Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 5.750