Literature DB >> 24270192

The unintended consequences of cervical screening: distress in women undergoing cytologic surveillance.

Linda Sharp1, Seonaidh Cotton, Margaret Cruickshank, Nicola M Gray, Kirsten Harrild, Louise Smart, Leslie G Walker, Julian Little.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: It is well known that receipt of an initial abnormal cervical cytology test can trigger considerable anxiety among women. Less is known about the impact of follow-up by repeat cytology tests. We quantified prevalence, and identified predictors, of distress after repeat cytologic testing in women with a single low-grade test.
METHODS: Within the framework of the TOMBOLA randomized controlled trial of alternative managements, 844 women aged 20 to 59 years with a single routine cytology test showing borderline nuclear abnormalities (BNA; broadly equivalent to atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) were assigned to follow-up by repeat cytology in primary care (the first test was due 6 months after the initial BNA result). Women completed sociodemographic and psychosocial questionnaires at recruitment and the Impact of Event Scale (IES) 6 weeks after their first follow-up cytology test. Factors associated with significant psychologic distress (IES ≥ 9) were identified using logistic regression.
RESULTS: The response rate was 74% (n = 621/844). Of all the respondents, 39% scored in the range for significant distress. Distress varied by follow-up cytology result: negative, 36%; BNA or mild dyskaryosis, 42%; other (including high grade and inadequate), 55%. After adjusting for the cytology result, risk of distress was significantly raised in women who had significant anxiety at recruitment, reported experiencing pain after the follow-up cytology, had children, or were dissatisfied with support they had received after their initial BNA test.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial proportions of women experience surveillance-related psychologic distress after a follow-up cytology test, even when the result is negative. This is an important, albeit unintended, consequence of cervical screening. Strategies to alleviate this distress merit attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24270192     DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31829c97d8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis        ISSN: 1089-2591            Impact factor:   1.925


  9 in total

1.  Role of cervical cytology in surveillance after radical trachelectomy for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Alaina J Brown; Jaimin S Shah; Nicole D Fleming; Alpa M Nick; Pamela T Soliman; Gary B Chisholm; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Primary care visit use after positive fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Christopher D Jensen; Wei K Zhao; Alfred I Neugut; Benjamin Lebwohl; Jasmin A Tiro; Lawrence H Kushi; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Immediate referral to colposcopy versus cytological surveillance for minor cervical cytological abnormalities in the absence of HPV test.

Authors:  Maria Kyrgiou; Ilkka E J Kalliala; Anita Mitra; Christina Fotopoulou; Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami; Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Margaret Cruickshank; Marc Arbyn; Evangelos Paraskevaidis
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-01-26

4.  Cervical Cancer Screening-Moving From the Value of Evidence to the Evidence of Value.

Authors:  George F Sawaya
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 21.873

5.  Consequences of screening in cervical cancer: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Siersma; Hanne Thorsen
Journal:  BMC Psychol       Date:  2018-08-10

6.  Consequences of screening in colorectal cancer (COS-CRC): development and dimensionality of a questionnaire.

Authors:  Jessica Malmqvist; Volkert Siersma; Christine Winther Bang; John Brodersen
Journal:  BMC Psychol       Date:  2021-01-07

7.  Trust and cancer screening: Effects of a screening controversy on women's perceptions of cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  B O'Donovan; Therese Mooney; Ben Rimmer; Patricia Fitzpatrick; Grainne Flannelly; Lorraine Doherty; Noirin Russell; Cara M Martin; John J O'Leary; Linda Sharp; Mairead O'Connor
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-12-27

8.  Role of Dual-Staining p16/Ki-67 in the Management of Patients under 30 Years with ASC-US/L-SIL.

Authors:  Cristina Secosan; Andrea Pasquini; Delia Zahoi; Andrei Motoc; Diana Lungeanu; Oana Balint; Aurora Ilian; Ligia Balulescu; Dorin Grigoras; Laurentiu Pirtea
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-04

9.  Health economic evaluation of an mRNA high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) assay versus a DNA HR-HPV assay for the proposed French cervical screening programme.

Authors:  Caroline A Dombrowski; Georgie Mf Weston; Pr Philippe Descamps; Pr Jacques Izopet; Elisabeth J Adams; Elisabeth Adams
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 1.817

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.