Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 5, Issue , 2007, Pages

  Brodersen, John ^a   McKenna, Stephen P ^b   Doward, Lynda C ^b   Thorsen, Hanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b GALEN RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTENT VALIDITY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DISEASE SEVERITY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEAR; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PREDICTION; PSYCHOMETRY; SHORT FORM 36; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MASS SCREENING; NEOPLASMS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 33846709599     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-3     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Morabia A Zhang FF History of medical screening: From concepts to action Postgrad Med J 2004 80 463-469 10.1136/pgmj.2003.018226 15299156
2. Wilson JMG Jungner G Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization 1968
3. Mayor S Study highlights insensitivity of PSA screening BMJ 2005 331 67 a 558605 16002862 10.1136/bmj.331.7508.67-a
4. Pashayan N Powles J Brown C Duffy SW Incidence trends of prostate cancer in East Anglia, before and during the era of PSA diagnostic testing Br J Cancer 2006 95 398-400 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603247 16832416
5. Raffle AE Quinn M Harms and benefits of screening to prevent cervical cancer Lancet 2004 364 1483-1484 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17260-7 15500881
6. Zackrisson S Andersson I Janzon L Manjer J Garne JP Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmo mammographic screening trial: Follow-up study BMJ 2006 332 7543 689-692 1410836 16517548 10.1136/bmj.38764.572569.7C
7. Gotzsche PC Nielsen M Screening for breast cancer with mammography Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006 CD001877 Review. 17054145
8. Nielsen M Thomsen JL Primdahl S Dyreborg U Andersen JA Breast cancer and atypia among young and middle-aged women: A study of 110 medicolegal autopsies British Journal of Cancer 1987 814-9 2829956
9. Ottesen GL Graversen HP Blichert-Toft M Christensen IJ Andersen JA Carcinoma in situ of the female breast. 10 year follow-up results of a prospective nationwide study Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000 62 197-210 10.1023/A:1006453915590 11072784
10. Zahl PH Andersen JM Maehlen J Spontaneous regression of cancerous tumors detected by mammography screening JAMA 2004 292 2579-80 10.1001/ jama.292.21.2579 15572712
11. Zahl PH Strand BH Mahlen J Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: Prospective cohort study BMJ 2004 bmj. 390204 15013948
12. Ostor AG Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: A critical review Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993 12 186-92 10.1097/ 00004347-199304000-00018 8463044
13. Rose G Barker DJ Epidemiology for the uninitiated. What is a case? Dichotomy or continuum? BMJ 1978 2 6141 873-874 1607980 709100
14. Taupin D Chambers SL Corbett M Shadbolt B Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer improves quality of life measures: A population-based screening study Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006 4 82 1626073 17044941 10.1186/1477-7525-4-82
15. Towler BP Irwig L Glasziou P Weller D Kewenter J Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000 2 CD001216 Review. 10796760
16. Raffle AE Alden B Quinn M Babb PJ Brett MT Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: Analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented BMJ 2003 326 901 153831 12714468 10.1136/bmj.326.7395.901
17. Brett J Austoker J Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: Psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance J Public Health Med 2001 23 292-300 10.1093/pubmed/23.4.292 11873891
18. Brett J Bankhead C Henderson B Watson E Austoker J The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review Psychooncology 2005 14 917-938 10.1002/pon.904 15786514
19. Barratt AL Cancer screening. Benefits, harms and making an informed choice Aust Fam Physician 2006 35 39-42 16489385
20. Det Etiske Råd. Screening - a report The Danish Council of Ethics http://www.etiskraad.dk/sw307.asp
21. McCaffery KJ Barratt AL Assessing psychosocial/quality of life outcomes in screening: How do we do it better? J Epidemiol Community Health 2004 58 968-970 10.1136/jech.2004.025114 15547053
22. Lunde IM "Jeg håber det bedste..." [Danish]. Ringkøbing: Den Medicinske Forskningsenhed, Ringkøbing 1997
23. Cockburn J De LT Hurley S Clover K Development and validation of the PCQ: A questionnaire to measure the psychological consequences of screening mammography Soc Sci Med 1992 34 1129-1134 10.1016/ 0277-9536(92)90286-Y 1641674
24. Posner TN Vessey M Prevention of Cervical Cancer, the Patients View London: King's Fund Publishing Office 1988
25. Padgett DK Yedidia MJ Kerner J Mandelblatt J The emotional consequences of false positive mammography: African-American women's reactions in their own words Women Health 2001 33 1-14 10.1300/J013v33n03_01 11527098
26. Brodersen J Measuring psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening results - breast cancer as an example Department of General Practice, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen: Månedsskrift for Praktisk Lægegerning, Copenhagen 2006 ISBN: 87-88638-36-7
27. Brodersen J Thorsen H Cockburn J The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography J Med Screen 2004 11 39-44 10.1258/096914104772950745 15006113
28. Brodersen J Thorsen H Cockburn J Validity of short-term consequences of cancer prevention and screening activities? J Clin Oncol 2005 23 244-245 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.900 15625383
29. Cullen J Schwartz MD Lawrence WF Selby JV Mandelblatt JS Short-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life J Clin Oncol 2004 22 943-952 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.191 14990651
30. Hobart JC Williams LS Moran K Thompson AJ Quality of life measurement after stroke: Uses and abuses of the SF-36 Stroke 2002 33 1348-1356 10.1161/01.STR.0000015030.59594.B3 11988614
31. Cortina JM What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications J Appl Psychol 1993 78 98-104 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
32. Tennant A McKenna SP Hagell P Application of Rasch Analysis in the Development and Application of Quality of Life Instruments Value Health 2004 7 S22-S26 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.7s106.x 15367240
33. Rosenbaum PR Criterion-related construct validity Psychometrika 1989 54 625-33 10.1007/BF02296400
34. Rasch G An Informal Report on a Theory of Objectivity in Comparisons An Informal Report on a Theory of Objectivity in Comparisons Leyden: University of Leyden Van der Kamp LJTh, Vlek CAJ 1967 1-19
35. Andersen EB Sufficient Statistics and Latent Trait Models Psychometrika 1977 42 69-81 10.1007/BF02293746
36. Bartholomew DJ The Statistical Approach to Social measurement San Diego: Academic Press 1996
37. Raczek AE Ware JE Bjorner JB Gandek B Haley SM Aaronson NK Apolone G Bech P Brazier JE Bullinger M Sullivan M Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment J Clin Epidemiol 1998 51 1203-1214 10.1016/ S0895-4356(98)00112-7 9817138
38. Gilbert C Brown MCJ Cappelleri J Parpia T McKenna SP Establishing a minimally important difference in 6-minute walk distance and SF-36 among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension Chest 2005 128 365S-a