PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John Brodersen

Publications and source records attributed to John Brodersen.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening.

The last three decades have seen a dramatic rise in the implementation of screening programmes for cancer in industrialised countries. However, in contrast to screening for infectious diseases, most cancer screening programmes only have the potential to reduce mortality; they cannot lower the incidence of cancer in a population. In fact, most cancer screening programmes have been shown to increase the incidence of the disease as a consequence of over-diagnosis. A further dilemma of cancer screening programmes is that they do not distinguish between healthy people and those with disease. Rather, they identify a continuum of disease severity. Consequently, many healthy people who have abnormal screening tests are wrongly diagnosed. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that for each screening-prevented death from cancer, at least 200 false-positive results are given. Therefore, screening has the potential to be harmful as well as beneficial. The psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening results cannot be determined by diagnostic tests or by other technical means. Instead, patient reported outcome measures must be employed. To measure the outcomes of screening accurately and comprehensively patient reported outcome measures have to capture; the nature and extent of the psychosocial consequences and how these change over time. The outcome measures used must have high content validity and their psychometric properties should be determined prior to their use in the specific population. In particular it is important to establish unidimensionality, additivity and item ordering through the application of Item Response Theory.

Diagnostic Errors↗

The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review quantitative studies on women's experiences of consequences of false-positive screening mammography to assess the adequacy of the most frequently used instruments for measuring short-term and long-term psychological consequences. METHODS: Relevant papers reporting quantitative studies on consequences of false-positive screening mammography were identified using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycInfo databases. Articles citing development and psychometric properties of the most frequently used measures were also retrieved. Finally, the review focused on studies that had used at least one of the most frequently used measures. RESULTS: Twenty-three relevant studies were identified. The most commonly used measures were the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). One or more of these was used in 17 of the 23 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The GHQ, the HADS and the STAI have problems with language, content relevance, and content coverage in studies of false-positive screening mammography. These instruments should not be used to measure psychological consequences of any kind of cancer screening. The PCQ is an adequate questionnaire for measuring short-term consequences, and the PCQ is preferable to other measures because of its higher sensitivity. However, there is little evidence that the PCQ is able to adequately detect all long-term consequences of screening mammography. Given the inadequacy of the measurement instruments used, any current conclusions about the long-term consequences of false-positive results of screening mammography must remain tentative.

Anxiety↗

[Consequences of uncertainty and overdiagnosis in screening].

Uncertainty in screening has consequences for real people's lives. This article describes the various types of uncertainty, such as false results, diagnostic probabilities, consistency in diagnosing, bias in screening research, cumulative risk of false results over a life span, and the potential risk with certain procedures. Overdiagnosis as an unrecognised cause of harm in screening is also discussed. Every offer of a screening contains a hidden message, saying: "you are not able to assess your own health; even if you think you are healthy, you may have an unknown disease". Hence, the worst effect of screening might be the undermining of people's confidence in their ability to assess their own health. If the concept of screening conveys the idea in the population that only medical examinations can say anything about health status, it implies the use of many other activities in the health care system to convince healthy people that they are still healthy.

Bias↗