Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Cancer screening can facilitate early detection that improves survival, but also can identify an abnormal finding that is not malignant and deemed benign. While such false positive (FP) results can impact a variety of psychological outcomes, little is known about demographic, clinical, dispositional, and social-environmental characteristics associated with psychological outcomes after a FP result. Women participating in an ovarian cancer (OC) screening program and experiencing a FP screening test result (n = 375) completed assessments at baseline and 4-months. Results indicated greater social constraint and less education were linked to greater OC-specific distress at both assessments. Short-term predictors included less optimism and no previous abnormal test, while longer-term predictors were fewer previous screens and the interaction between OC family history and monitoring coping style. Younger age, less education, less optimism, greater social constraint, and family history of OC were associated with greater perceptions of OC risk. Brief interventions prior to screening may minimize the negative impact of a false positive result and not interfere with compliant participation in screening programs.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
American Cancer Society. (2016). Cancer facts and figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.
Andrykowski, M. A. (2017). Psychological and behavioral impact of participation in ovarian cancer screening. Diagnostics (Basel), 7(1), 15. CrossRef
Barrett, J., Jenkins, V., Farewell, V., Menon, U., Jacobs, I., Kilkerr, J., et al. (2014). Psychological morbidity associated with ovarian cancer screening: Results from more than 23,000 women in the randomised trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 121, 1071–1079. CrossRef
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., Miller, C. J., & Fulford, D. (2009). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 303–311). New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Jenkins, V., Fallowfield, L., Langridge, C., Barrett, J., Ryan, A., Jacobs, I., et al. (2015). Psychosocial factors associated with withdrawal from the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening after 1 episode of repeat screening. International Journal of Gyncegological Cancer, 25, 1519–1525. CrossRef
Lepore, S. J. (2001). A social-cognitive processing model of emotional adjustment to cancer. In A. Baum & B. L. Andersen (Eds.), Psychosocial interventions for cancer (pp. 99–116). Washington, DC: American Pychological Association. CrossRef
Lepore, S., & Ituarte, P. H. (1999). Optimism about cancer enhances mood by reducing negative social interactions. Cancer Research, Therapy, and Control, 8, 165–174.
Moyer, V. A., & U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2012). Screening for ovarian cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156, 900–904. CrossRef
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201–228. CrossRef
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of significant suffering. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. CrossRef
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Concepual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–8. CrossRef
van Nagell, J. R., Jr., & Pavlik, E. J. (2012). Ovarian cancer screening. Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 55, 43–51. CrossRef
Wardle, J., Pernet, A., Collins, W., & Bourne, T. (1994). False positive results in ovarian cancer screening: One year follow-up of psychological status. Psychology and Health, 10, 33–40. CrossRef
- Demographic, clinical, dispositional, and social-environmental characteristics associated with psychological response to a false positive ovarian cancer screening test: a longitudinal study
Amanda T. Wiggins
Edward J. Pavlik
Michael A. Andrykowski
- Springer US