Emma Chad-Friedman1,2, Sarah Coleman3, Lara N Traeger2,4, William F Pirl2,4, Roberta Goldman1, Steven J Atlas5, Elyse R Park1,2,4,6. 1. Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Partners In Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current national cancer screening recommendations include the potential risk of psychological harm related to screening. However, data on the relation of psychological distress to cancer screening is limited. The authors conducted a systematic review to assess psychological distress associated with cancer screening procedures. METHODS: Studies that administered measures of psychological distress between 2 weeks before and 1 month after the screening procedure were included. RESULTS: In total, 22 eligible studies met criteria for review, including 13 observational trials and 9 randomized controlled trials. Eligible studies used a broad range of validated and unvalidated measures. Anxiety was the most commonly assessed construct and was measured using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Studies included breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and cervical screening procedures. Distress was low across procedures, with the exception of colorectal screening. Distress did not vary according to the time at which distress was measured. None of the studies were conducted exclusively with the intention of assessing distress at the time of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of low distress during the time of cancer screening suggests that distress might not be a widespread barrier to screening among adults who undergo screening. However, more studies are needed using validated measures of distress to further understand the extent to which screening may elicit psychological distress and impede adherence to national screening recommendations. Cancer 2017;123:3882-94.
BACKGROUND: Current national cancer screening recommendations include the potential risk of psychological harm related to screening. However, data on the relation of psychological distress to cancer screening is limited. The authors conducted a systematic review to assess psychological distress associated with cancer screening procedures. METHODS: Studies that administered measures of psychological distress between 2 weeks before and 1 month after the screening procedure were included. RESULTS: In total, 22 eligible studies met criteria for review, including 13 observational trials and 9 randomized controlled trials. Eligible studies used a broad range of validated and unvalidated measures. Anxiety was the most commonly assessed construct and was measured using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Studies included breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and cervical screening procedures. Distress was low across procedures, with the exception of colorectal screening. Distress did not vary according to the time at which distress was measured. None of the studies were conducted exclusively with the intention of assessing distress at the time of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of low distress during the time of cancer screening suggests that distress might not be a widespread barrier to screening among adults who undergo screening. However, more studies are needed using validated measures of distress to further understand the extent to which screening may elicit psychological distress and impede adherence to national screening recommendations. Cancer 2017;123:3882-94.
Authors: Mary B Barton; Debra S Morley; Sara Moore; Jennifer D Allen; Ken P Kleinman; Karen M Emmons; Suzanne W Fletcher Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-04-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-01
Authors: Jianfei Xie; Ziyu Wan; Yinglong Duan; Miao Wang; Yating Luo; Panpan Xiao; Yue Kang; Yi Zhou; Xiaofei Luo; Qian Sun; Andy S K Cheng Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sue P Heiney; Pearman D Parker; Tisha M Felder; Swann Arp Adams; Omonefe O Omofuma; Jennifer M Hulett Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: June K Robinson; Megan Perez; Dalya Abou-El-Seoud; Kathryn Kim; Zoe Brown; Elona Liko-Hazizi; Sarah M Friedewald; Mary Kwasny; Bonnie Spring Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2019-06-28
Authors: Patricia Markham Risica; Natalie H Matthews; Laura Dionne; Jennifer Mello; Laura K Ferris; Melissa Saul; Alan C Geller; Francis Solano; John M Kirkwood; Martin A Weinstock Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2018-04-17