乳腺筛查假阳性结果后的情绪构建和结果测量:关于报告清晰度和选择理由的系统性综述。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Psycho‐Oncology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1002/pon.6334
Hannah A Long, Sarah Hindmarch, John-Paul Martindale, Joanna M Brooks, Michelle Harvie, David P French
{"title":"乳腺筛查假阳性结果后的情绪构建和结果测量:关于报告清晰度和选择理由的系统性综述。","authors":"Hannah A Long, Sarah Hindmarch, John-Paul Martindale, Joanna M Brooks, Michelle Harvie, David P French","doi":"10.1002/pon.6334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>(i) To systematically identify constructs and outcome measures used to assess the emotional and mood impact of false positive breast screening test results; (ii) to appraise the reporting clarity and rationale for selecting constructs and outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were systematically searched from 1970. Studies using standardised and non-standardised outcome measures to evaluate the emotion or mood impact of false positive breast screening test results were eligible. A 15-item coding scheme was devised to appraise articles on clarity and rationale for selected constructs and measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-seven articles were identified. The most investigated constructs were general anxiety and depression and disease-specific anxiety and worry. Twenty-two standardised general outcome questionnaire measures and three standardised disease-specific outcome questionnaire measures were identified. Twenty articles used non-standardised scales/items. Reporting of constructs and outcome measures was generally clear, but rationales for their selection were lacking. Anxiety was typically justified, but justification for depression was almost always absent. Practical and psychometric justification for selecting outcome measures was lacking, and theoretical rationale was absent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Heterogeneity in constructs and measures, coupled with unclear rationale for these, impedes a thorough understanding of why there are emotional effects of false positive screening test results. This may explain the repeated practice of investigating less relevant outcomes such as depression. There is need to develop a consensual conceptual model of and standardised approach to measuring emotional impact from cancer screening test results, to address heterogeneity and other known issues of interpreting an inconsistent evidence base.</p>","PeriodicalId":20779,"journal":{"name":"Psycho‐Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emotion constructs and outcome measures following false positive breast screening test results: A systematic review of reporting clarity and selection rationale.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah A Long, Sarah Hindmarch, John-Paul Martindale, Joanna M Brooks, Michelle Harvie, David P French\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pon.6334\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>(i) To systematically identify constructs and outcome measures used to assess the emotional and mood impact of false positive breast screening test results; (ii) to appraise the reporting clarity and rationale for selecting constructs and outcome measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were systematically searched from 1970. Studies using standardised and non-standardised outcome measures to evaluate the emotion or mood impact of false positive breast screening test results were eligible. A 15-item coding scheme was devised to appraise articles on clarity and rationale for selected constructs and measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-seven articles were identified. The most investigated constructs were general anxiety and depression and disease-specific anxiety and worry. Twenty-two standardised general outcome questionnaire measures and three standardised disease-specific outcome questionnaire measures were identified. Twenty articles used non-standardised scales/items. Reporting of constructs and outcome measures was generally clear, but rationales for their selection were lacking. Anxiety was typically justified, but justification for depression was almost always absent. Practical and psychometric justification for selecting outcome measures was lacking, and theoretical rationale was absent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Heterogeneity in constructs and measures, coupled with unclear rationale for these, impedes a thorough understanding of why there are emotional effects of false positive screening test results. This may explain the repeated practice of investigating less relevant outcomes such as depression. There is need to develop a consensual conceptual model of and standardised approach to measuring emotional impact from cancer screening test results, to address heterogeneity and other known issues of interpreting an inconsistent evidence base.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psycho‐Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psycho‐Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.6334\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psycho‐Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.6334","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:(i) 系统地确定用于评估乳腺筛查假阳性结果对情绪和心境影响的结构和结果测量方法;(ii) 评估报告的清晰度以及选择结构和结果测量方法的合理性:对 1970 年以来的数据库(MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO)进行了系统检索。使用标准化和非标准化结果测量方法来评估乳腺筛查假阳性结果对情绪或心情影响的研究均符合条件。研究人员设计了一个由 15 个项目组成的编码方案,以评估文章所选结构和测量方法的清晰度和合理性:结果:共鉴定出 47 篇文章。调查最多的概念是一般焦虑和抑郁以及疾病特异性焦虑和担忧。确定了 22 种标准化的一般结果问卷测量方法和 3 种标准化的特定疾病结果问卷测量方法。20篇文章使用了非标准化量表/项目。结构和结果测量的报告一般都比较清晰,但缺乏选择的理由。焦虑通常有合理的解释,但抑郁几乎都没有合理的解释。结果测量指标的选择缺乏实用性和心理测量学依据,也缺乏理论依据:结论:结构和测量方法的异质性,再加上这些测量方法的理由不明确,妨碍了对筛查试验假阳性结果产生情绪影响的原因的透彻理解。这或许可以解释为什么要反复调查抑郁等不太相关的结果。因此,有必要制定一个共识概念模型和标准化方法来衡量癌症筛查检测结果对情绪的影响,以解决异质性和其他已知的解释不一致的证据基础的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Emotion constructs and outcome measures following false positive breast screening test results: A systematic review of reporting clarity and selection rationale.

Objective: (i) To systematically identify constructs and outcome measures used to assess the emotional and mood impact of false positive breast screening test results; (ii) to appraise the reporting clarity and rationale for selecting constructs and outcome measures.

Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were systematically searched from 1970. Studies using standardised and non-standardised outcome measures to evaluate the emotion or mood impact of false positive breast screening test results were eligible. A 15-item coding scheme was devised to appraise articles on clarity and rationale for selected constructs and measures.

Results: Forty-seven articles were identified. The most investigated constructs were general anxiety and depression and disease-specific anxiety and worry. Twenty-two standardised general outcome questionnaire measures and three standardised disease-specific outcome questionnaire measures were identified. Twenty articles used non-standardised scales/items. Reporting of constructs and outcome measures was generally clear, but rationales for their selection were lacking. Anxiety was typically justified, but justification for depression was almost always absent. Practical and psychometric justification for selecting outcome measures was lacking, and theoretical rationale was absent.

Conclusions: Heterogeneity in constructs and measures, coupled with unclear rationale for these, impedes a thorough understanding of why there are emotional effects of false positive screening test results. This may explain the repeated practice of investigating less relevant outcomes such as depression. There is need to develop a consensual conceptual model of and standardised approach to measuring emotional impact from cancer screening test results, to address heterogeneity and other known issues of interpreting an inconsistent evidence base.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psycho‐Oncology
Psycho‐Oncology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
220
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Psycho-Oncology is concerned with the psychological, social, behavioral, and ethical aspects of cancer. This subspeciality addresses the two major psychological dimensions of cancer: the psychological responses of patients to cancer at all stages of the disease, and that of their families and caretakers; and the psychological, behavioral and social factors that may influence the disease process. Psycho-oncology is an area of multi-disciplinary interest and has boundaries with the major specialities in oncology: the clinical disciplines (surgery, medicine, pediatrics, radiotherapy), epidemiology, immunology, endocrinology, biology, pathology, bioethics, palliative care, rehabilitation medicine, clinical trials research and decision making, as well as psychiatry and psychology. This international journal is published twelve times a year and will consider contributions to research of clinical and theoretical interest. Topics covered are wide-ranging and relate to the psychosocial aspects of cancer and AIDS-related tumors, including: epidemiology, quality of life, palliative and supportive care, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, social work, nursing and educational issues. Special reviews are offered from time to time. There is a section reviewing recently published books. A society news section is available for the dissemination of information relating to meetings, conferences and other society-related topics. Summary proceedings of important national and international symposia falling within the aims of the journal are presented.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信