Dataset Information

Psychosocial consequences of screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurisms: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

In Sweden, an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme was gradually implemented from 2009 to reduce the incidence of rupture and thereby mortality. AAA screening introduces a variety of unintended, but generally unavoidable, harms, e.g. stress and worry. Such psychosocial consequences have previously only been investigated with generic measures. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe and compare the psychosocial consequences in men with a screening detected AAA to men with a normal screening result after they participated in the Swedish national AAA-screening programme using a validated psychometric instrument.

Material and methods

This study was a cross-sectional survey. Data were originally collected to validate the COS-AAA and has previously been published in details. The Consequences of Screening in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (COS-AAA) questionnaire was sent to 250 men with a screening detected AAA and 500 with a normal screening result who were randomly selected from a Swedish population-based screening register.

Results

In total, 158 (63%) men with a screening detected AAA and 275 (55%) men with a normal screening result completed the COS-AAA. We found that men with a screening detected AAA reported negative psychosocial consequences to a greater extent in 10 of 13 COS-AAA Part 1 scales, all statistically significant except three (behaviour, sleep and negative experiences from examination). For COS-AAA Part 2, there was a statistically significant difference between groups in four of five scales.

Conclusions

Men diagnosed with a screening detected AAA, reported more negative psychosocial consequences compared to men with a normal result. Screening for abdominal aorta aneurism (AAA) introduces intended benefits and unintended harms. Adequate measures are necessary to determine the balance between them.Key points:This study applied a condition-specific questionnaire with high content validity and adequate psychometric properties to measure psychosocial consequences in men participating in AAA screening.We found that men with a screening detected AAA reported more negative psychosocial consequences than men with a normal aorta size.The risk of negative psychosocial consequences is important to include in the decision making on whether to participate in screening or not.

SUBMITTER: Damhus CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8725974 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe gold standard management of aortic dissection, a life-threatening condition, includes multidisciplinary approaches. Although mental distress following aortic dissection is common, evidence-based psychosocial interventions for aortic dissection survivors are lacking.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to identify the perceived psychosocial needs of aortic dissection survivors by surveying patients, their relatives, and health professionals to inform the development of such interventions.MethodsThis study used a cross-sectional survey and collected responses from 41 participants (27 patients with aortic dissection, 8 relatives of patients with aortic dissection, and 6 health professionals) on key topics, types of interventions, best timing, anticipated success, and the intended effects and side effects of psychosocial interventions after aortic dissection.ResultsThe principal intervention topics were "changes in everyday life" (28/41, 68%, 95% CI 54.5%-82.9%), "anxiety" (25/41, 61%, 95% CI 46.2%-76.2%), "uncertainty" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 42.9%-73.2%), "tension/distress" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 43.9%-73.8%), and "trust in the body" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35.9%-67.5%). The most commonly indicated intervention types were "family/relative therapy" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-65.9%) and "anxiety treatment" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-67.5%). The most recommended intervention timing was "during inpatient rehabilitation" (26/41, 63%, 95% CI 47.6%-77.5%) followed by "shortly after inpatient rehabilitation" (20/41, 49%, 95% CI 32.4%-65%). More than 95% (39/41) of respondents anticipated a benefit from psychosocial interventions following aortic dissection dissection, expecting a probable improvement in 68.6% (95% CI 61.4%-76.2%) of aortic dissection survivors, a worse outcome for 5% (95% CI 2.9%-7.9%), and that 6% (95% CI 1.8%-10.4%) would have negative side effects due to such interventions.ConclusionsOur findings highlight a substantial need for psychosocial interventions in aortic dissection survivors and indicate that such interventions would be a success. They provide a basis for the development and evaluation of interventions as part of state-of-the-art aortic dissection management.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate whether surveillance of pulmonary nodules detected with low-dose CT (LDCT) impacted health-related quality of life and psychosocial consequences in the Swedish population-based study, Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS).DesignA prospective cross-sectional study.Settings and participantsThis multicentre (five sites) observational study, which included a cohort from SCAPIS, consisted of 632 participants with indeterminate pulmonary nodules detected with LDCT. These participants continued surveillance for up to 36 months, during which lung cancer was not detected (surveillance group). Additionally, 972 participants with a negative pulmonary LDCT scan were included as a control group. Matching criteria were LDCT date (±2 weeks), gender and site.Outcome measuresAll participants completed a health-related quality of life questionnaire (RAND-36) and the Consequences of Screening (COS) questionnaire, an average of 3 years after LDCT was conducted at entry into SCAPIS.ResultsParticipants were 51-70 years old at study commencement. Overall, the two groups did not differ in demographic or psychosocial variables, smoking habits or pulmonary medical history. Individuals from countries other than Sweden and those with low socioeconomic status were less likely to participate (p<0.001). No effects on health-related quality of life were observed via RAND-36. In COS, the surveillance group demonstrated a higher OR for anxiety about lung cancer (OR 3.96, 95% CI 2.35 to 6.66, p<0.001), experiencing a sense of dejection (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.72, p=0.015) and thoughts about existential values (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.60, p=0.018).ConclusionsLung surveillance with LDCT contributed to significant experiences of sense of dejection, anxiety about lung cancer and development of thoughts about existential values among participants in the surveillance group compared with the controls. The risk of side effects should be communicated for informed decision-making about (non-)attendance in lung cancer screening.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome are difficult for women, as they entail risk, potential loss, and regret. Shared decision making increases women's knowledge of their choices and better aligns decisions with their values. Patient decision aids foster shared decision making but are rarely used in this context. OBJECTIVE:One of the most promising strategies for implementing shared decision making is distribution of decision aids by health professionals. We aimed to identify factors influencing their intention to use a DA during prenatal visit for decisions about Down syndrome screening. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative study. Using a Web panel, we conducted a theory-based survey of health professionals in Quebec province (Canada). Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) family physicians, midwives, obstetrician-gynecologists, or trainees in these professions; (2) involved in prenatal care; and (3) working in Quebec province. Participants watched a video depicting a health professional using a decision aid during a prenatal consultation with a woman and her partner, and then answered a questionnaire based on an extended version of the theory of planned behavior, including some of the constructs of the theoretical domains framework. The questionnaire assessed 8 psychosocial constructs (attitude, anticipated regret, subjective norm, self-identity, moral norm, descriptive norm, self-efficacy, and perceived control), 7 related sets of behavioral beliefs (advantages, disadvantages, emotions, sources of encouragement or discouragement, incentives, facilitators, and barriers), and sociodemographic data. We performed descriptive, bivariate, and multiple linear regression analyses to identify factors influencing health professionals' intention to use a decision aid. RESULTS:Among 330 health professionals who completed the survey, 310 met the inclusion criteria: family physicians, 55.2% (171/310); obstetrician-gynecologists, 33.8% (105/310); and midwives, 11.0% (34/310). Of these, 80.9% were female (251/310). Mean age was 39.6 (SD 11.5) years. Less than half were aware of any decision aids at all. In decreasing order of importance, factors influencing their intention to use a decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening were as follows: self-identity (beta=.325, P<.001), attitude (beta=.297, P<.001), moral norm (beta=.288, P<.001), descriptive norm (beta=.166, P<.001), and anticipated regret (beta=.099, P=.003). Underlying behavioral beliefs significantly related to intention were that the use of a decision aid would promote decision making (beta=.117, 95% CI 0.043-0.190), would reassure health professionals (beta=.100, 95% CI 0.024-0.175), and might require more time than planned for the consultation (beta=-.077, 95% CI -0.124 to -0.031). CONCLUSIONS:We identified psychosocial factors that could influence health professionals' intention to use a decision aid about Down syndrome screening. Strategies should remind them of the following: (1) using a decision aid for this purpose should be a common practice, (2) it would be expected of someone in their societal role, (3) the experience of using it will be satisfying and reassuring, and (4) it is likely to be compatible with their moral values.