Psychological distress associated with cancer screening: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
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. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
SUBMITTER: Chad-Friedman E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8116666 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPsychological distress is common in patients with cancer; interfering with physical and psychological wellbeing, and hindering management of physical symptoms. Our aim was to systematically review published evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for cancer-related psychological distress, at all stages of the disease.MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022311729). Searches were made using eight online databases to identify studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Data were collected on outcome measures, modes of delivery, resources and evidence of efficacy. A meta-analysis was planned if data allowed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).ResultsFifty-nine studies with 17,628 participants were included. One third of studies included mindfulness, talking or group therapies. Half of all studies reported statistically significant improvements in distress. Statistically significant intervention effects on distress were most prevalent for mindfulness techniques. Four of these mindfulness studies had moderate effect sizes (d = -0.71[95% CI: -1.04, -0.37] p < 0.001) (d = -0.60 [95% CI: -3.44, -0.89] p < 0.001) (d = -0.77 [CI: -0.146, -1.954] p < 0.01) (d = -0.69 [CI: -0.18, -1.19] p = 0.008) and one had a large effect size (d = -1.03 [95% CI: -1.51, -0.54] p < 0.001). Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Study quality was variable and some had a high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe majority of studies using a mindfulness intervention in this review are efficacious at alleviating distress. Mindfulness-including brief, self-administered interventions-merits further investigation, using adequately powered, high-quality studies.Systematic review registrationThis systematic review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42022311729.
| S-EPMC10324164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: Patients with malignancies, experience high rates of psychological distress. Fear of Corona-infection combined with the interruptions in some treatment programs might affect the psychological health of cancer patients. This review study was conducted to investigate the psychological distress among cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic to offer system-adapted individual solutions. Materials and methods: To identify the psychological distress of cancer patients, a comprehensive search was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. English language and original articles were included in this study. Articles that addressed any psychological distress among cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic were included. Results: At first 1,410 articles, were included in the study. After removing duplicate articles and reviewing the title and abstract, 55 articles were selected for the review. The findings of this study revealed COVID-19 greatly affects psychological health of cancer patients. Fear of COVID-19, fear of disease progression, disruption of oncology services, cancer stage, and immunocompromised status were the most common causes of psychological distress in oncology patients which can influence patients' decisions about treatment. Conclusion: The COVID-19 related anxiety is an expected reaction to the current situation. Although psychological distress affects many people, it can confuse cancer patients to the point that they refuse to continue treatment for the fear of infection and worsening of their condition. Since the end of this pandemic is unknown, this action can endanger the health and prognosis of this group of patients, so it seems that using psychological interventions and intensive counseling in the current situation is one of the main priorities for cancer patients.
| S-EPMC8506116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe PODCAD study aimed at assessing the degree of psychological stress that women experience due to notification of an abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) smear finding or a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) test result.MethodsWe designed a survey to address the question of psychological burden due to abnormal Pap smear results and/or positive HPV tests. In this online campaign approach, we aimed to reach > 2000 women all over Germany irrespective of kind and number of abnormal screening findings. We asked for different kinds of anxiety, distress and uncertainty regarding both, Pap and HPV status.ResultsA total of 3753 women completed the survey at least partially, and almost 2300 fully completed the survey. Of these, more than 50% were affected already since more than 1 year, and almost half of them had experienced at least three Pap smears in follow-up examinations. Almost 70% of the women were afraid of developing cancer. Intriguingly, almost half of the women with abnormal findings were not aware of their stage of the Pap smear. Furthermore, almost 30% of the women displayed signs of a post-traumatic stress disorder.ConclusionAbnormal results in cervical cancer screening have an impact on patients' psychology, irrespective of the knowledge and severity of the findings. Better information concerning risks and benefits of cervical cancer screening and about the meaning of the outcome of its procedures are required to decrease this anxiety.
| S-EPMC7447652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) is a psychological intervention with established efficacy in the prevention and treatment of depressive disorders. Previous systematic reviews have not evaluated the effectiveness of IPT on symptoms of stress, anxiety, depression, quality of life, relationship satisfaction/quality, social supports, and an improved psychological sense of wellbeing. There is limited information regarding moderating and mediating factors that impact the effectiveness of IPT such as the timing of the intervention or the mode of delivery of IPT intervention. The overall objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of IPT interventions to treat perinatal (from pregnancy up to 12 months postpartum) psychological distress. METHODS:MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (OVID), CINAHL with Full Text (Ebsco), Social Work Abstracts (Ebsco), SocINDEX with Full Text (Ebsco), Academic Search Complete (Ebsco), Family & Society Studies Worldwide (Ebsco), Family Studies Abstracts (Ebsco), and Scopus databases were searched from inception until 31 January 2019. Two researchers independently screened articles for eligibility. Of the 685 screened articles, 43 met the inclusion criteria. The search was re-run on 11 May 2020. An additional 204 articles were screened and two met the inclusion criteria, resulting in a total of 45 studies included in this review. There were 25 Randomized Controlled Trials, 10 Quasi-experimental studies, eight Open Trials, and two Single Case Studies. All included studies were critically appraised for quality. RESULTS:In most studies (n = 24, 53%), the IPT intervention was delivered individually; in 17 (38%) studies IPT was delivered in a group setting and two (4%) studies delivered the intervention as a combination of group and individual IPT. Most interventions were initiated during pregnancy (n = 27, 60%), with the remaining 18 (40%) studies initiating interventions during the postpartum period. LIMITATIONS:This review included only English-language articles and peer-reviewed literature. It excluded government reports, dissertations, conference papers, and reviews. This limited the access to grassroots or community-based recruitment and retention strategies that may have been used to target smaller or marginalized groups of perinatal women. CONCLUSIONS:IPT is an effective intervention for the prevention and treatment of psychological distress in women during their pregnancy and postpartum period. As a treatment intervention, IPT is effective in significantly reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety as well as improving social support, relationship quality/satisfaction, and adjustment. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019114292.
| S-EPMC7697337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnanticipated severe injury to part of the musculoskeletal system, referred to as orthopedic trauma, can be debilitating. It can also be accompanied by equally debilitating psychological distress, but little is known about the effective interventions for psychological sequelae of orthopedic trauma.Questions/purposesWe sought to determine the effectiveness of interventions on psychological outcomes, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and pain catastrophizing (feelings of helplessness, excessive rumination, and exaggerated description of pain), after major orthopedic trauma.MethodsUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement as guidelines, we systematically searched Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Studies included for review were English-language interventional studies in an orthopedic trauma population that included assessment of post-injury psychological distress or disability as either a primary or secondary aim.ResultsTwelve studies were identified, including six randomized trials, three prospective cohort studies, and three retrospective cohort studies. Study sample sizes ranged from 48 to 569 patients, the mean age ranged from 29 to 52.8 years, and the percentage of male patients ranged from 38 to 90%. We examined four categories of interventions. Peer group treatment (one study) significantly reduced rates of depression but had low participation rates. Brief interventions to teach coping and self-efficacy skills (two studies) decreased depression, pain catastrophizing, and anxiety scores while increasing self-efficacy on short-term follow-up. Individualized counseling and rehabilitation (four studies) resulted in a consistent reduction in the risk of PTSD. Early amputation was found to result in lower rates of PSTD than limb salvage in US military personnel (four studies). One study examined surgeons' confidence in dealing with possible psychological distress; surgeons who participated in a program on collaborative care were significantly more confident that they could help their patients with such issues.ConclusionInterventional strategies, including group interventions, brief individual interventions, longitudinal counseling, and consideration of early amputation in selected populations have proved effective in reducing negative psychological sequelae of major orthopedic trauma. Further research that determines the effects of interventions in this population is needed.
| S-EPMC7534886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective We aimed to examine the performance of the distress thermometer (DT) and identify the prevalence and risk factors associated with psychological distress (PD) in heterogeneous cancer patients. Methods This cross-sectional study enrolled 1496 heterogeneous cancer patients from the inpatient and outpatient departments. Receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC) of DT was evaluated against the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Total (HADS-T ?15). An area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and clinical utility index were calculated. Multiple binary logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with PD. Results Referring to ROC analysis, DT showed good discriminating accuracy (AUC?=?0.88). A cutoff score of 4 was established, and it yielded sensitivity (0.81), specificity (0.88), PPV (0.87), NPV (0.82), and clinical utility indexes (screening utility?=?0.71 and case-finding utility?=?0.73). 46.5% of our participants was distressed. Lower education levels (odd ratio (OR)?=?1.39), advanced stage (OR?=?1.85), active disease status (OR?=?1.82), lack of exercise (OR?=?3.03), diagnosis known (OR?=?0.64), emotional problems (OR?=?3.54), and physical problems (OR?=?8.62) were the predictive factors for PD. Conclusion DT with a cutoff score (?4) is a comprehensive, appropriate, and practical initial screener for PD in cancer patients. Predicting factors should be considered together for effective management of PD in such population.
| S-EPMC7528146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDisutility allows to identify how much population values intervention-related harms contributing to knowledge on the benefits/harms ratio of cancer screening programs. This systematic review evaluates disutility related to cancer screening applying a utility theory framework.MethodsUsing a predefined protocol, Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google scholar and supplementary sources were systematically searched. The framework grouped disutilities associated with breast, cervical, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening programs into the screening, diagnostic work up, and treatment phases. We assessed the quality of included studies according to the relevance to target population, risk of bias, appropriateness of measure and the time frame.ResultsOut of 2840 hits, we included 38 studies, of which 27 measured (and others estimated) disutilities. Around 70% of studies had medium to high-level quality. Measured disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss were 0-0.03 and 0-0.0013 respectively in screening phases. Both disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss had similar ranges in diagnostic work up (0-0.26), and treatment (0.09-0.27) phases. We found no measured disutilities available for lung cancer screening and-little evidence for disutilities in treatment phase. Almost 40% of the estimated disutility values were above the range of measured ones.ConclusionsCancer screening programs led to low disutities related to screening phase, and low to moderate disutilities related to diagnostic work up and treatment phases. These disutility values varied by the measurement instrument applied, and were higher in studies with lower quality. The estimated disutility values comparing to the measured ones tended to overestimate the harms.
| S-EPMC6655768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMulti-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded.ResultsIn total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results.ConclusionsThe psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.
| S-EPMC8886782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:The primary aim of the review was to determine the effectiveness of strategies to improve clinician provision of psychosocial distress screening and referral of patients with cancer. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:Electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)) were searched until July 2016. INCLUSION CRITERIA:Population: adult patients with cancer and clinical staff members. INTERVENTION:any strategy that aimed to improve the rate of routine screening and referral for detected distress of patients with cancer. Comparison: no intervention controls, 'usual' practice or alternative interventions. OUTCOME:(primary) any measure of provision of screening and/or referral for distress, (secondary) psychosocial distress, unintended adverse effects. DESIGN:trials with or without a temporal comparison group, including randomised and non-randomised trials, and uncontrolled pre-post studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently extracted data. Heterogeneity across studies precluded quantitative assessment via meta-analysis and so a narrative synthesis of the results is presented. RESULTS:Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were set in oncology clinics or departments and used multiple implementation strategies. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, the overall rating of the certainty of the body of evidence reported in this review was assessed as very low. Three studies received a methodological quality rating of weak and two studies received a rating of moderate. Only one of the five studies reported a significant improvement in referrals. CONCLUSIONS:The review identified five studies of predominantly poor quality examining the effectiveness of strategies to improve the routine implementation of distress screening and referral for patients with cancer. Future research using robust research designs, including randomised assignment, are needed to identify effective support strategies to maximise the potential for successful implementation of distress screening and referral for patients with cancer. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42015017518.
| S-EPMC5988073 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are treatable disorders, yet many people do not seek professional help. Interventions designed to improve help-seeking attitudes and increase help-seeking intentions and behaviour have been evaluated in recent times. However, there have been no systematic reviews of the efficacy or effectiveness of these interventions in promoting help-seeking. Therefore, this paper reports a systematic review of published randomised controlled trials targeting help-seeking attitudes, intentions or behaviours for depression, anxiety, and general psychological distress. METHODS: Studies were identified through searches of PubMed, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane database in November 2011. Studies were included if they included a randomised controlled trial of at least one intervention targeting help-seeking for depression or anxiety or general psychological distress, and contained extractable data on help-seeking attitudes or intentions or behaviour. Studies were excluded if they focused on problems or conditions other than the target (e.g., substance use, eating disorder). RESULTS: Six published studies of randomised controlled trials investigating eight different interventions for help-seeking were identified. The majority of trials targeted young adults. Mental health literacy content was effective (d?=?.12 to .53) in improving help-seeking attitudes in the majority of studies at post-intervention, but had no effect on help-seeking behaviour (d?=?-.01, .02). There was less evidence for other intervention types such as efforts to destigmatise or provide help-seeking source information. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health literacy interventions are a promising method for promoting positive help-seeking attitudes, but there is no evidence that it leads to help-seeking behaviour. Further research investigating the effects of interventions on attitudes, intentions, and behaviour is required.
| S-EPMC3464688 | biostudies-literature