Screening in healthcare: general issues

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511543579.107

Screening in healthcare: general issues

from Psychology, health and illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2014

Edited by

John Weinman and

Anne Miles: Affiliation:
University College London
Susan Ayers: Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Andrew Baum: Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Chris McManus: Affiliation:
St Mary's Hospital Medical School
Stanton Newman: Affiliation:
University College and Middlesex School of Medicine
Kenneth Wallston: Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University School of Nursing
John Weinman: Affiliation:
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's
Robert West: Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

People are offered screening tests throughout their lifetime, from birth through to old age. But although screening for certain diseases/disorders is widely accepted, screening for other types remains controversial. The aim of this chapter is to provide a general outline of the current debates and developments within screening, and it draws principally on examples from the field of cancer screening. More detailed discussion of the issues surrounding cardiac, genetic and antenatal screening and further discussion of cancer screening, can be found in other chapters in this book (see ‘Screening: antenatal’, ‘Screening: cancer’, ‘Screening: cardiac’ and ‘Screening: genetic’).

The aims of screening

The term ‘screening’ is usually reserved to describe the testing of all people within a specific sector of the population (e.g. people within a particular age range) who have no symptoms, and who appear to be at ‘average risk’ of getting the target disease. Although, in the case of neonates, screening might be used to enhance the medical management of the future date (i.e. once the child has been born) or to give parents the opportunity to terminate a pregnancy if they do not wish to have a child who has a particular disability or condition, the main purpose of screening is often to reduce disease-related morbidity and mortality by detecting disease at an early stage, when treatment is more likely to be successful.

Early detection can lead to fewer disease-related complications, because simpler, less toxic treatment is required. It can also dramatically enhance a person's chance of survival.

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine , pp. 490 - 495

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543579.107 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aro, A. R., Pilvikki Absetz, S., Elderen, T. M.et al. (2000). False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress – breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. European Journal of Cancer, 36, 1089–97.Google Scholar

Austoker, J. & Ong, G. (1994). Written information needs of women who are recalled for further investigation of breast screening: results of a multicentre study. Journal of Medical Screening, 1, 238–44.Google Scholar

Bankhead, C. R., Brett, J., Bukach, C.et al. (2003). The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 7, 1–92.Google Scholar

Brenner, R. J. (2004). Breast cancer evaluation: medical legal issues. The Breast Journal, 10, 6–9.Google Scholar

Connor, M. & Norman, P. (Eds.). (1995). Predicting health behaviour. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Jongh, S., Kerckhoffs, M. C., Grootenhuis, M. A.et al. (2003). Quality of life, anxiety and concerns among statin-treated children with familial hypercholesterolaemia and their parents. Acta Paediatrica, 92, 1096–101.Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, G. & Edwards, A. (2003). Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. British Medical Journal, 327, 741–4.Google Scholar

Goldberger, J. J., Kruse, J., Parker, M. A. & Kadish, A. H. (1997). Effect of informed consent on anxiety in patients undergoing diagnostic electrophysiology studies. American Heart Journal, 134, 119–26.Google Scholar

Green, J. M., Hewison, J., Bekker, H. L., Bryant, L. D. & Cuckle, H. S. (2004). Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 8, 1–109.Google Scholar

Hall, S., Bobrow, M. & Marteau, T. M. (2000). Psychological consequences for parents of false negative results on prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: retrospective interview study. British Medical Journal, 320, 407–12.Google Scholar

Havas, S., Reisman, J., Hsu, L. & Koumjian, L. (1991). Does cholesterol screening result in negative labeling effects? Results of the Massachusetts model systems for blood cholesterol screening project. Archives of Internal Medicine, 151, 113–19.Google Scholar

Hoff, G., Thiis-Evensen, E., Grotmol, T.et al. (2001). Do undesirable effects of screening affect all-cause mortality in flexible sigmoidoscopy programmes? Experience from the Telemark polyp study 1983–1996. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 10, 131–7.Google Scholar

Houston, D. M., Lloyd, K., Drysdale, S. & Farmer, M. (2001). The benefits of uncertainty: changes in women's perceptions of the cervical screening programme as a consequence of screening errors by Kent and Canterbury NHS Trust. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 6, 107–13.Google Scholar

Kim, L. G., Thompson, S. G., Marteau, T. M. & Scott, R. A. (2004). Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: the effects of age and social deprivation on screening uptake, prevalence and attendance at follow-up in the MASS trial. Journal of Medical Screening, 11, 50–3.Google Scholar

King, J., Fairbrother, G., Thompson, C. & Morris, D. L. (1992) Colorectal cancer screening: optimal compliance with postal faecal occult blood test. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 62, 714–19.Google Scholar

Laing, I. A. & McIntosh, N. (2004). Practicalities of consent. Lancet, 364, 659.Google Scholar

Lampic, C., Thurfjell, E., Bergh, J. & Sjoden, P. O. (2001). Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening. European Journal of Cancer, 37, 463–9.Google Scholar

Lazcano-Ponce, E. C., Moss, S., Alonso, D. R., Salmeron, C. J. & Hernandez, A. M. (1999). Cervical cancer screening in developing countries: why is it ineffective? The case of Mexico. Archives of Medical Research, 30, 240–50.Google Scholar

Lindau, S. T., Tomori, C., Lyons, T.et al. (2002). The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 186, 938–43.Google Scholar

Lurie, J. & Welch, H. (1999). Diagnostic testing following fecal occult blood screening in the elderly. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 91, 1616.Google Scholar

Marshall, T. & Adab, P. (2003). Informed consent for breast screening: what should we tell women?Journal of Medical Screening, 10, 22–6.Google Scholar

McCaffery, K., Wardle, J., Nadel, M. & Atkin, W. (2002). Socioeconomic variation in participation in colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Medical Screening, 9, 104–8.Google Scholar

Meissner, H. I., Smith, R. A., Rimer, B. K.et al. (2004). Promoting cancer screening: learning from experience. Cancer, 101, 1107–17.Google Scholar

Miles, A., Cockburn, J., Smith, R. A. & Wardle, J. (2004). A perspective from countries using organized screening programs. Cancer, 101, 1201–13.Google Scholar

Petticrew, M. P., Sowden, A. J., Lister-Sharp, D. & Wright, K. (2000). False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications. Health Technology Assessment, 4, 1–120.Google Scholar

Prorok, P. C., Andriole, G. L., Bresalier, R. S.et al. (2000). Design of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 21, 273S–309S.Google Scholar

Rimer, B. K. & Bluman, L. G. (1997). The psychosocial consequences of mammography. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 131–8.Google Scholar

Rimer, B. K., Briss, P. A., Zeller, P. K., Chan, E. C. & Woolf, S. H. (2004). Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?Cancer, 101, 1214–28.Google Scholar

Rosenberg, E., Lamping, D. L., Joseph, L., Pless, I. B. & Franco, E. D. (1997). Cholesterol screening of children at high risk: behavioural and psychological effects. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 156, 489–96.Google Scholar

Sirovich, B. E., Schwartz, L. M. & Woloshin, S. (2003). Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence?Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 1414–20.Google Scholar

Stead, M. J., Wallis, M. G. & Wheaton, M. E. (1998). Improving uptake in non-attenders of breast screening: selective use of second appointment. Journal of Medical Screening, 5, 69–72.Google Scholar

Streetly, A., Grant, C., Bickler, G.et al. (1994). Variation in coverage by ethnic group of neonatal (Guthrie) screening programme in south London. British Medical Journal, 309, 372–4.Google Scholar

Sutton, S., Bickler, G., Sancho-Aldridge, J. & Saidi, G. (1994). Prospective study of predictors of attendance for breast screening in inner London. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 48, 65–73.Google Scholar

Troein, M., Rastam, L. & Selander, S. (2002). Changes in health beliefs after labelling with hypercholesterolaemia. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 30, 76–9.Google Scholar

UK CRC Screening Pilot Evaluation Team. (2003). Evaluation of the UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot. Available from URL: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/colorectal/finalreport.pdf.

Vernon, S. W. (1999). Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviours: a review. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 101–19.Google Scholar

Wardle, J., Pernet, A. & Stephens, D. (1995). Psychological consequences of positive results in cervical cancer screening. Psychology and Health, 10, 185–94.Google Scholar

Weinstein, N. D. (1993). Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 12, 324–33.Google Scholar

Wender, R. C. (2002). Barriers to screening for colorectal cancer. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America, 12, 145–70.Google Scholar

Whitney, S. N., McGuire, A. L. & McCullough, L. B. (2004). A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Annals of Internal Medicine, 140, 54–9.Google Scholar

Wilson, J. M. (1968). Principles and Practice of Screening for Diseases. Geneva, World Health Organization.

Wilson, R. M. (2000). Screening for breast and cervical cancer as a common cause for litigation. A false negative result may be one of an irreducible minimum of errors. British Medical Journal, 320, 1352–3.Google Scholar

Zapka, J. G. & Lemon, S. C. (2004). Interventions for patients, providers, and health care organizations. Cancer, 101, 1165–87.Google Scholar

Book contents

Screening in healthcare: general issues

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive