Quantifying the psychological and behavioural consequences of a diagnostic label for non-cancer conditions: systematic review

Background Screening for asymptomatic health conditions is perceived as mostly beneficial, with possible harms receiving little attention. Aims To quantify proximal and longer-term consequences for individuals receiving a diagnostic label following screening for an asymptomatic, non-cancer health condition. Method Five electronic databases were searched (inception to November 2022) for studies that recruited asymptomatic screened individuals who received or did not receive a diagnostic label. Eligible studies reported psychological, psychosocial and/or behavioural outcomes before and after screening results. Independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions). Results were meta-analysed or descriptively reported. Results Sixteen studies were included. Twelve studies addressed psychological outcomes, four studies examined behavioural outcomes and none reported psychosocial outcomes. Risk of bias was judged as low (n = 8), moderate (n = 5) or serious (n = 3). Immediately after receiving results, anxiety was significantly higher for individuals receiving versus not receiving a diagnostic label (mean difference −7.28, 95% CI −12.85 to −1.71). On average, anxiety increased from the non-clinical to clinical range, but returned to the non-clinical range in the longer term. No significant immediate or longer-term differences were found for depression or general mental health. Absenteeism did not significantly differ from the year before to the year after screening. Conclusions The impacts of screening asymptomatic, non-cancer health conditions are not universally positive. Limited research exists regarding longer-term impacts. Well-designed, high-quality studies further investigating these impacts are required to assist development of protocols that minimise psychological distress following diagnosis.

[1]  D. Patrick,et al.  Patient-reported outcomes associated with cancer screening: a systematic review , 2022, BMC Cancer.

[2]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Consequences of a Diagnostic Label: A Systematic Scoping Review and Thematic Framework , 2021, Frontiers in Public Health.

[3]  E. Huang,et al.  2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. , 2021, Diabetes care.

[4]  C. O’Connor,et al.  How does diagnostic labelling affect social responses to people with mental illness? A systematic review of experimental studies using vignette-based designs , 2021, Journal of mental health.

[5]  Elizabeth M Webber,et al.  Screening for Hypertension in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. , 2021, JAMA.

[6]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2021, BMJ.

[7]  A. Ranchor,et al.  Psychological outcomes, knowledge and preferences of pregnant women on first-trimester screening for fetal structural abnormalities: A prospective cohort study , 2021, PloS one.

[8]  L. Jørgensen,et al.  Factors affecting patient adherence to publicly funded colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review. , 2020, Public health.

[9]  C. O’Connor,et al.  Effects of diagnostic disclosure and varying diagnostic terminology on social attitudes to personality disorder: An experimental vignette study. , 2020, Personality disorders.

[10]  Lauren Rockliffe,et al.  Emotional response to testing positive for human papillomavirus at cervical cancer screening: a mixed method systematic review with meta-analysis , 2020, Health psychology review.

[11]  V. Swanson,et al.  Is diagnosis of type 2 diabetes a "teachable moment"? A qualitative study. , 2020, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[12]  R. Murthy,et al.  Beyond Numbers – Recent Understanding of Emotional Needs of Persons Diagnosed with Cancer 2007–2018 , 2020, Indian journal of palliative care.

[13]  M. Cabana,et al.  Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. , 2019, JAMA.

[14]  V. Montori,et al.  Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review , 2019, Systematic Reviews.

[15]  J. Polk,et al.  Illuminating an Invisible Epidemic: A Systemic Review of the Clinical and Economic Benefits of Early Diagnosis and Treatment in Inflammatory Disease and Related Syndromes , 2019, Journal of clinical medicine.

[16]  G. Pravettoni,et al.  A Systematic Review of the Psychological Implications of Genetic Testing: A Comparative Analysis Among Cardiovascular, Neurodegenerative and Cancer Diseases , 2018, Front. Genet..

[17]  Solange Durão,et al.  Screening strategies for hypertension. , 2018, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[18]  Erin Breitenbach,et al.  Four-year review of presenteeism data among employees of a large United States health care system: a retrospective prevalence study , 2018, Human Resources for Health.

[19]  D. Spencer.  Labelling Theory , 2018, SAGE Research Methods Foundations.

[20]  K. White,et al.  The THRIVE model: A framework and review of internal and external predictors of coping with chronic illness , 2018, Health psychology open.

[21]  N. Pimlott,et al.  Screening: when things go wrong. , 2018, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[22]  Ralf Bender,et al.  Methods for evidence synthesis in the case of very few studies , 2018, Research synthesis methods.

[23]  S. Wordsworth,et al.  Cancer as the “perfect storm”? A qualitative study of public attitudes to health conditions , 2017, Health science reports.

[24]  L. Traeger,et al.  Psychological distress associated with cancer screening: A systematic review , 2017, Cancer.

[25]  A. Barratt,et al.  Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences , 2017, BMJ Open.

[26]  R. Grad,et al.  Better decision making in preventive health screening: Balancing benefits and harms. , 2017, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[27]  Charlotte Kingsley,et al.  Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures , 2017 .

[28]  M. Hernán,et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[29]  M. Phipps,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. , 2016, JAMA.

[30]  Carol S. Bond,et al.  Living with a long-term condition: Understanding well-being for individuals with thrombophilia or asthma , 2016, International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being.

[31]  Philip Scheltens,et al.  Timely Diagnosis for Alzheimer’s Disease: A Literature Review on Benefits and Challenges , 2015, Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD.

[32]  T. Hoffmann,et al.  Patients' expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[33]  J. Moncrieffe.  Introduction. Labelling, Power and Accountability: How and Why ‘Our’ Categories Matter , 2013 .

[34]  T. Andrews,et al.  What is Social Constructionism , 2012 .

[35]  Nathalie Huguet,et al.  Health behavior change following chronic illness in middle and later life. , 2012, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[36]  T. Marteau,et al.  Emotional impact of screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2011, BMC public health.

[37]  T. Jørgensen,et al.  Screening for risk of cardiovascular disease is not associated with mental distress: the Inter99 study. , 2009, Preventive medicine.

[38]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses , 2008 .

[39]  G. Lupyan.  The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more) , 2008, Cognition.

[40]  Po-Jen Cheng,et al.  Anxiety levels in women undergoing prenatal maternal serum screening for Down syndrome: the effect of a fast reporting system by mobile phone short‐message service , 2008, Prenatal diagnosis.

[41]  T. Revenson,et al.  Health psychology: psychological adjustment to chronic disease. , 2007, Annual review of psychology.

[42]  P. Cheng,et al.  Maternal anxiety about first trimester nuchal translucency screening and impact of positive screening results , 2007, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[43]  Y. Soong,et al.  Maternal anxiety about prenatal screening for group B streptococcus disease and impact of positive colonization results. , 2006, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[44]  Fiona J. Hibberd.  Unfolding Social Constructionism , 2005 .

[45]  G. Nijpels,et al.  No substantial psychological impact of the diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes following targeted population screening: The Hoorn Screening Study , 2004, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[46]  C. Shaw,et al.  Psychological impact of predicting individuals' risks of illness: a systematic review. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[47]  B. Brambati,et al.  Coping with serum screening for Down syndrome when the result is given as a numeric value , 1998, Prenatal diagnosis.

[48]  A. Mann,et al.  The Psychological Impact of Screening for Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care Settings , 1998, Journal of Cardiovascular Risk.

[49]  S. Michie,et al.  The psychological effects of false‐positive results in prenatal screening for fetal abnormality: A prospective study , 1992, Prenatal diagnosis.

[50]  Bruce G. Link,et al.  A modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders : an empirical assessment , 1989 .

[51]  S. Fortmann,et al.  Consequences of worksite hypertension screening. Changes in absenteeism. , 1987, Hypertension.

[52]  B. C. Schumann,et al.  Sex, race, age, and hypertension as determinants of employee absenteeism. , 1985, American journal of epidemiology.

[53]  A. Mann.  The psychological effect of a screening programme and clinical trial for hypertension upon the participants , 1977, Psychological Medicine.

[54]  M. Schmitt,et al.  State/Trait Interactions , 2020, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[55]  Chris Del Mar,et al.  Clinicians’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests: A Systematic Review , 2017, JAMA internal medicine.

[56]  P. Güner.  Three Phases of Cancer in the Process of Mental Trauma: Diagnosis, Treatment, Survival , 2017 .

[57]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[58]  P. Salkovskis,et al.  Psychological and behavioural effects of bone density screening for osteoporosis , 1999 .

[59]  B. Burton,et al.  The psychological impact of false positive elevations of maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein. , 1985, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[60]  B. Burton,et al.  The psychological impact of false positive elevations of maternal serum α-fetoprotein , 1985 .

[61]  D. Sackett,et al.  Effects of labelling on income, work and social function among hypertensive employees. , 1984, Journal of chronic diseases.

[62]  D. Sackett,et al.  Labelling in hypertension: a review of the behavioural and psychological consequences. , 1984, Journal of chronic diseases.

[63]  P. Stenn,et al.  A study of the labelling phenomenon in school children with elevated blood pressure. , 1981, Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale.