The Psychological Harms of Screening: the Evidence We Have Versus the Evidence We Need
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Systematic reviews for the US Preventive Services Task Force have found less high-quality evidence on psychological than physical harms of screening. To understand the extent of evidence on psychological harms, we developed an evidence map that quantifies the distribution of evidence on psychological harms for five adult screening services. We also note gaps in the literature and make recommendations for future research.
We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL from 2002 to 2012 for studies of any research design that assessed the burden or frequency of psychological harm associated with screening for: prostate and lung cancers, osteoporosis, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and carotid artery stenosis (CAS). We also searched for studies that estimated rates of overdiagnosis (a marker for unnecessary labeling). We included studies published in English and used dual independent review to determine study inclusion and to abstract information on design, types of measures, and outcomes assessed.
Sixty-eight studies assessing psychological harms met our criteria; 62 % concerned prostate cancer and 16 % concerned lung cancer. Evidence was scant for the other three screening services. Overall, only about one-third of the studies used both longitudinal designs and condition-specific measures (ranging from 0 % for AAA and CAS to 78 % for lung cancer), which can provide the best evidence on harms. An additional 20 studies that met our criteria estimated rates of overdiagnosis in lung or prostate cancer. No studies estimated overdiagnosis for the non-cancer screening services.
Evidence on psychological harms varied markedly across screening services in number and potential usefulness. We found important evidence gaps for all five screening services. The evidence that we have on psychological harms is inadequate in number of studies and in research design and measures. Future research should focus more clearly on the evidence that we need for decision making about screening.
- Harris R. Overview of screening: where we are and where we may be headed. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33(1):1–6. CrossRef
- Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(10):781–8. CrossRef
- Harris RP, Sheridan SL, Lewis CL, et al. The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;174(2):281–286. CrossRef
- Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: Systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:f7668. CrossRef
- Heleno B, Thomsen MF, Rodrigues DS, Jørgensen KJ, Brodersen J. Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review. BMJ. 2013;347:f5334. CrossRef
- Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(7):502–10. CrossRef
- Salz T, Richman AR, Brewer NT. Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes. Psychooncology. 2010;19(10):1026–34. CrossRef
- McCaffery KJ, Barratt AL. Assessing psychosocial/quality of life outcomes in screening: how do we do it better? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(12):968–70. CrossRef
- Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Kreiner S. Consequences of screening in lung cancer: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire. Value Health. 2010;13(5):601. CrossRef
- Lin K, Lipsitz R, Miller T, Janakiraman S. Benefits and Harms of Prostate-Specific Cancer Screening: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 63. AHRQ Publication No. 08-05121-EF-1. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
- Lin K, Croswell JM, Koenig H, Lam C, Maltz A. Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 90. AHRQ Publication No. 12-05160-EF-1. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.
- Humphrey LL, Johnson M, Teutsch S. Lung Cancer Screening: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Systematic Evidence Reviews, No. 31. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004.
- Humphrey L, Deffebach M, Pappas M, Baumann C, Artis K, Priest Mitchell J, Zakher B, Fu R, Slatore C. Screening for Lung Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Evidence Synthesis No. 105. AHRQ Publication No. 13-05188-EF-1. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
- Fleming C, Whitlock E, Beil T, Lederle F. Primary Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Evidence Syntheses, No. 35. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005.
- Guirguis-Blake JM, Beil TL, Sun X, Senger CA, Whitlock EP. Primary Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 109. AHRQ Publication No. 14-05202-EF-1. Rockville: Agencyfor Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.
- Nelson HD, Haney EM, Chou R, Dana T, Fu R, Bougatsos C. Screening for Osteoporosis: Systematic Review to Update the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Evidence Synthesis No. 77. AHRQ Publication No. 10-05145-EF-1. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
- Nelson HD, Helfand M. Screening for Postmenopausal Osteoporosis. Systematic Evidence Review No.17. (Prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290970018. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002.
- Wolff T, Guirguis-Blake J, Miller T, Gillespie M, Harris R. Screening for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis. Evidence Synthesis No. 50. AHRQ Publication No. 08-05102-EF-1. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.
- Jonas DE, Feltner C, Amick HR, Sheridan S, Zheng Z, Watford DJ, Carter JL, Rowe CJ, Harris R. Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. No. 111. AHRQ Publication No. 13-05178-EF1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; February 2014. Draft evidence report.
- National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409. CrossRef
- Salter CI, Howe A, McDaid L, Blacklock J, Lenaghan E, Shepstone L. Risk, significance and biomedicalisation of a new population: older women’s experience of osteoporosis screening. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(6):808–15. CrossRef
- Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Cockburn J. The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography. J Med Screen. 2004;11(1):39–44. CrossRef
- Weil JG, Hawker JI. Positive findings of mammography may lead to suicide. BMJ. 1997;314(7082):754. CrossRef
- The Psychological Harms of Screening: the Evidence We Have Versus the Evidence We Need
Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive Services, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- 2. UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- 7. Department of Health Behavior, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, 325 Rosenau Hall, CB 7440, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7440, USA
- 3. University of North Carolina, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- 5. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
- 6. University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, NC, USA