Cargando…

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

OBJECTIVES: To identify available literature on prevalence, severity and contributing factors of scan-associated anxiety (‘scanxiety’) and interventions to reduce it. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controll...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bui, Kim Tam, Liang, Roger, Kiely, Belinda E, Brown, Chris, Dhillon, Haryana M, Blinman, Prunella
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34039571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043215
_version_ 1783700230100746240
author Bui, Kim Tam
Liang, Roger
Kiely, Belinda E
Brown, Chris
Dhillon, Haryana M
Blinman, Prunella
author_facet Bui, Kim Tam
Liang, Roger
Kiely, Belinda E
Brown, Chris
Dhillon, Haryana M
Blinman, Prunella
author_sort Bui, Kim Tam
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To identify available literature on prevalence, severity and contributing factors of scan-associated anxiety (‘scanxiety’) and interventions to reduce it. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, EBSCO CINAHL and PubMed up to July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies recruited people having cancer-related non-invasive scans (including screening) and contained a quantitative assessment of scanxiety. DATA EXTRACTION: Demographics and scanxiety outcomes were recorded, and data were summarised by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 26 693 citations, 57 studies were included across a range of scan types (mammogram: 26/57, 46%; positron-emission tomography: 14/57, 25%; CT: 14/57, 25%) and designs (observation: 47/57, 82%; intervention: 10/57, 18%). Eighty-one measurement tools were used to quantify prevalence and/or severity of scanxiety, including purpose-designed Likert scales (17/81, 21%); the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (14/81, 17%) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (9/81, 11%). Scanxiety prevalence ranged from 0% to 64% (above prespecified thresholds) or from 13% to 83% (‘any’ anxiety, if no threshold). Mean severity scores appeared low in almost all measures that quantitatively measured scanxiety (54/62, 87%), regardless of whether anxiety thresholds were prespecified. Moderate to severe scanxiety occurred in 4%–28% of people in studies using descriptive measures. Nine of 20 studies assessing scanxiety prescan and postscan reported significant postscan reduction in scanxiety. Lower education, smoking, higher levels of pain, higher perceived risk of cancer and diagnostic scans (vs screening scans) consistently correlated with higher scanxiety severity but not age, gender, ethnicity or marital status. Interventions included relaxation, distraction, education and psychological support. Six of 10 interventions showed a reduction in scanxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence and severity of scanxiety varied widely likely due to heterogeneous methods of measurement. A uniform approach to evaluating scanxiety will improve understanding of the phenomenon and help guide interventions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8160190
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81601902021-06-10 Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety Bui, Kim Tam Liang, Roger Kiely, Belinda E Brown, Chris Dhillon, Haryana M Blinman, Prunella BMJ Open Oncology OBJECTIVES: To identify available literature on prevalence, severity and contributing factors of scan-associated anxiety (‘scanxiety’) and interventions to reduce it. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, EBSCO CINAHL and PubMed up to July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies recruited people having cancer-related non-invasive scans (including screening) and contained a quantitative assessment of scanxiety. DATA EXTRACTION: Demographics and scanxiety outcomes were recorded, and data were summarised by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 26 693 citations, 57 studies were included across a range of scan types (mammogram: 26/57, 46%; positron-emission tomography: 14/57, 25%; CT: 14/57, 25%) and designs (observation: 47/57, 82%; intervention: 10/57, 18%). Eighty-one measurement tools were used to quantify prevalence and/or severity of scanxiety, including purpose-designed Likert scales (17/81, 21%); the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (14/81, 17%) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (9/81, 11%). Scanxiety prevalence ranged from 0% to 64% (above prespecified thresholds) or from 13% to 83% (‘any’ anxiety, if no threshold). Mean severity scores appeared low in almost all measures that quantitatively measured scanxiety (54/62, 87%), regardless of whether anxiety thresholds were prespecified. Moderate to severe scanxiety occurred in 4%–28% of people in studies using descriptive measures. Nine of 20 studies assessing scanxiety prescan and postscan reported significant postscan reduction in scanxiety. Lower education, smoking, higher levels of pain, higher perceived risk of cancer and diagnostic scans (vs screening scans) consistently correlated with higher scanxiety severity but not age, gender, ethnicity or marital status. Interventions included relaxation, distraction, education and psychological support. Six of 10 interventions showed a reduction in scanxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence and severity of scanxiety varied widely likely due to heterogeneous methods of measurement. A uniform approach to evaluating scanxiety will improve understanding of the phenomenon and help guide interventions. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8160190/ /pubmed/34039571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043215 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Oncology
Bui, Kim Tam
Liang, Roger
Kiely, Belinda E
Brown, Chris
Dhillon, Haryana M
Blinman, Prunella
Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety
title Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety
title_full Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety
title_fullStr Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety
title_full_unstemmed Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety
title_short Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety
title_sort scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34039571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043215
work_keys_str_mv AT buikimtam scanxietyascopingreviewaboutscanassociatedanxiety
AT liangroger scanxietyascopingreviewaboutscanassociatedanxiety
AT kielybelindae scanxietyascopingreviewaboutscanassociatedanxiety
AT brownchris scanxietyascopingreviewaboutscanassociatedanxiety
AT dhillonharyanam scanxietyascopingreviewaboutscanassociatedanxiety
AT blinmanprunella scanxietyascopingreviewaboutscanassociatedanxiety