Cargando…

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 incide...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brodersen, John, McKenna, Stephen P, Doward, Lynda C, Thorsen, Hanne
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770907/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17210071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-3
_version_ 1782131709188243456
author Brodersen, John
McKenna, Stephen P
Doward, Lynda C
Thorsen, Hanne
author_facet Brodersen, John
McKenna, Stephen P
Doward, Lynda C
Thorsen, Hanne
author_sort Brodersen, John
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Text
id pubmed-1770907
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-17709072007-01-17 Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening Brodersen, John McKenna, Stephen P Doward, Lynda C Thorsen, Hanne Health Qual Life Outcomes Commentary 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. BioMed Central 2007-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC1770907/ /pubmed/17210071 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-3 Text en Copyright © 2007 Brodersen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentary
Brodersen, John
McKenna, Stephen P
Doward, Lynda C
Thorsen, Hanne
Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening
title Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening
title_full Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening
title_fullStr Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening
title_full_unstemmed Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening
title_short Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening
title_sort measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770907/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17210071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-3
work_keys_str_mv AT brodersenjohn measuringthepsychosocialconsequencesofscreening
AT mckennastephenp measuringthepsychosocialconsequencesofscreening
AT dowardlyndac measuringthepsychosocialconsequencesofscreening
AT thorsenhanne measuringthepsychosocialconsequencesofscreening