Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 242–248 | Cite as

The Psychological Harms of Screening: the Evidence We Have Versus the Evidence We Need

  • Jessica T. DeFrankEmail author
  • Colleen Barclay
  • Stacey Sheridan
  • Noel T. Brewer
  • Meredith Gilliam
  • Andrew M. Moon
  • William Rearick
  • Carolyn Ziemer
  • Russell Harris



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.


screening psychosocial 



This work was supported by grant # 1P01HS021133-01 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The funder had no role in the design, conduct, or analysis of this study or in the decision to submit the article for publication. We thank members of the UNC Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive Services who conceptualized the taxonomy of screening harms (Carmen Lewis, MD; Maihan Vu, DrPH; Christine Kistler, MD; and Carol Golin, MD) that provided the framework for our research. We also thank Kathleen McGraw, MA, with the UNC Health Sciences Library for her assistance with our systematic search.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11606_2014_2996_MOESM1_ESM.docx (72 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 72 kb)


  1. 1.
    Harris R. Overview of screening: where we are and where we may be headed. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33(1):1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zorzela L, Golder S, Liu Y, et al. Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: Systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:f7668.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heleno B, Thomsen MF, Rodrigues DS, Jørgensen KJ, Brodersen J. Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review. BMJ. 2013;347:f5334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(7):502–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Kreiner S. Consequences of screening in lung cancer: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire. Value Health. 2010;13(5):601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weil JG, Hawker JI. Positive findings of mammography may lead to suicide. BMJ. 1997;314(7082):754.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica T. DeFrank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 7
    Email author
  • Colleen Barclay
    • 1
  • Stacey Sheridan
    • 1
    • 3
  • Noel T. Brewer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Meredith Gilliam
    • 4
  • Andrew M. Moon
    • 5
  • William Rearick
    • 4
  • Carolyn Ziemer
    • 6
  • Russell Harris
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive ServicesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health BehaviorUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.University of North Carolina, School of MedicineChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Department of MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  6. 6.University of North Carolina HospitalsChapel HillUSA
  7. 7.Department of Health BehaviorUNC Gillings School of Global Public HealthChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations