Literature DB >> 28333180

Influence of the disease label 'polycystic ovary syndrome' on intention to have an ultrasound and psychosocial outcomes: a randomised online study in young women.

Tessa Copp1,2, Kirsten McCaffery1,2, Lamiae Azizi3, Jenny Doust4, Ben W J Mol5,6, Jesse Jansen1,2.   

Abstract

Study question: Does the disease label 'polycystic ovary syndrome' (PCOS) have an impact on desire for medical testing and psychosocial outcomes? Summary answer: When given the disease label PCOS in a hypothetical scenario, participants had higher intention to have an ultrasound, perceived the condition to be more severe and had lower self-esteem than those not given the disease label. What is known already: Widening diagnostic criteria and improved imaging sensitivity have increased the number of reproductive-aged women diagnosed with PCOS from 4% to 8% to up to 21%. The uncertain clinical benefit of knowing this diagnosis needs to be weighed against the potential for poor psychological outcomes in women labelled with PCOS. Study design, size, duration: This experimental online study randomised 181 young women to receive one of four hypothetical scenarios of a doctor's visit in a 2 (PCOS disease label versus no disease label) x 2 (information about unreliability of ultrasounds in clarifying diagnosis versus no information) design. Participants/materials, setting, methods: Participants were university students (mean age: 19.4). After presenting the scenario, intention to have an ultrasound, negative affect, self-esteem, perceived severity of condition, credibility of the doctor and interest in a second opinion were measured. Participants were then presented with a second scenario, where the possibility of PCOS overdiagnosis was mentioned. Change in intention and perceived severity were then measured. Main results and the role of chance: Participants given the PCOS label had significantly higher intention to have an ultrasound (mean = 6.62 versus mean = 5.76, P = 0.033, 95% CI(difference) = 0.069-1.599), perceived the condition to be more severe (17.17 versus 15.82, P = 0.019, 95% CI(difference) = 0.229-2.479) and had lower self-esteem (25.86 versus 27.56, P = 0.031, 95% CI(difference) = -3.187 to -0.157). After receiving overdiagnosis information, both intention and perceived severity decreased, regardless of condition (both P < 0.001). Limitations, reasons for caution: This study used hypothetical scenarios; it is likely that for women facing a real diagnosis of PCOS, outcomes would be more affected than in the current study. The hypothetical design, however, allowed the symptoms and risks of PCOS to be held constant across conditions, the impact on intention and psychosocial outcomes directly attributable to the effect of the disease label. Wider implications of the findings: These findings demonstrate the potential negative consequences of PCOS labelling. It is crucial we consider the impact of the label before diagnosing more women with PCOS when clinical benefit of this diagnosis is uncertain. Study funding/competing interest(s): This paper was written with support from a NHMRC grant awarded to the Screening and Test Evaluation Program. J.J. is supported by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship. K.M. is supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship. The authors declare that no competing interests exist. Trial registration number: ACTRN12617000111370. Trial registration date: 20/01/2017. Date of first patient's enrolment: 01/06/2015.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Entities:  

Keywords:  disease labelling; medical decision-making; overdiagnosis; polycystic ovary syndrome; psychosocial

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28333180     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  11 in total

Review 1.  Polycystic ovary syndrome: definition, aetiology, diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Héctor F Escobar-Morreale
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 43.330

2.  Characterizing the Language Used to Discuss Death in Family Meetings for Critically Ill Infants.

Authors:  Margaret H Barlet; Mary C Barks; Peter A Ubel; J Kelly Davis; Kathryn I Pollak; Erica C Kaye; Kevin P Weinfurt; Monica E Lemmon
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-10-03

3.  Consumer understanding of terms used in imaging reports requested for low back pain: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Caitlin Farmer; Denise A O'Connor; Hopin Lee; Kirsten McCaffery; Christopher Maher; Dave Newell; Aidan Cashin; David Byfield; Jeffrey Jarvik; Rachelle Buchbinder
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 3.006

Review 4.  Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences.

Authors:  Brooke Nickel; Alexandra Barratt; Tessa Copp; Ray Moynihan; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  The benefits and harms of receiving a polycystic ovary syndrome diagnosis: a qualitative study of women's experiences.

Authors:  T Copp; J Hersch; D M Muscat; K J McCaffery; J Doust; A Dokras; B W Mol; J Jansen
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2019-10-31

6.  The effects of messaging on long COVID expectations: An online experiment.

Authors:  Freya Mills; Jaskiran Kaur Bhogal; Amelia Dennis; Cristina Spoiala; Joanna Milward; Sidra Saeed; Leah Ffion Jones; Dale Weston; Holly Carter
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 5.556

7.  Effect of different communication strategies about stopping cancer screening on screening intention and cancer anxiety: a randomised online trial of older adults in Australia.

Authors:  Jenna Smith; Rachael H Dodd; Jolyn Hersch; Erin Cvejic; Kirsten McCaffery; Jesse Jansen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  A randomised on-line survey exploring how health condition labels affect behavioural intentions.

Authors:  Rae Thomas; Mark T Spence; Rajat Roy; Elaine Beller
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Consequences of health condition labelling: protocol for a systematic scoping review.

Authors:  Rebecca Sims; Luise Kazda; Zoe A Michaleff; Paul Glasziou; Rae Thomas
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-10-26       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  How do people perceive different labels for rotator cuff disease? A content analysis of data collected in a randomised controlled experiment.

Authors:  Joshua R Zadro; Zoe A Michaleff; Mary O'Keeffe; Giovanni E Ferreira; Romi Haas; Ian A Harris; Rachelle Buchbinder; Christopher G Maher
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.