Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences.
Communication
Mass screening
Mixed methods
NHSBSP, National Health Service Breast Screening Programme
Psychology
Review
Journal
Preventive medicine reports
ISSN: 2211-3355
Titre abrégé: Prev Med Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101643766
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
02
11
2018
revised:
17
12
2018
accepted:
28
12
2018
entrez:
23
1
2019
pubmed:
23
1
2019
medline:
23
1
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Attending and receiving a result from screening can be an anxious process. Using an appropriate method to deliver screening results could improve communication and reduce negative outcomes for screening attendees. Screening programmes are increasingly communicating results by letter or telephone rather than in-person. We investigated the impact of communication methods on attendees. We systematically reviewed the literature on the communication methods used to deliver results in cancer screening programmes for women, focusing on screening attendee anxiety, understanding of results and preferences for results communication. We included qualitative and quantitative research. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Embase. Results were analysed using framework synthesis. 10,558 papers were identified with seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Several key ideas emerged from the synthesis including speed, accuracy of results, visual support, ability to ask questions, privacy of results location and managing expectations. Verbal communication methods (telephone and in-person) were preferred and facilitated greater understanding than written methods, although there was considerable variability in attendee preferences. Findings for anxiety were mixed, with no clear consensus on which method of communication might minimise attendee anxiety. The low number of identified studies and generally low quality evidence suggest we do not know the most appropriate communication methods in the delivery of cancer screening results. More research is needed to directly compare methods of results communication, focusing on what impact each method may have on screening attendees.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30666286
doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.12.016
pii: S2211-3355(18)30288-2
pmc: PMC6330510
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
189-195Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : CDF-2016-09-018
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):114-6
pubmed: 10625273
Health Psychol. 2000 May;19(3):283-9
pubmed: 10868773
Prev Med. 2000 Oct;31(4):323-34
pubmed: 11006057
Am J Manag Care. 2000 Dec;6(12):1297-300
pubmed: 11151807
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001 Feb;41(1):82-5
pubmed: 11284654
J Med Screen. 2001;8(4):213-9
pubmed: 11743038
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Feb;178(2):451-6
pubmed: 11804917
J Public Health Med. 2001 Dec;23(4):292-300
pubmed: 11873891
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1-76
pubmed: 12583822
BMJ. 2003 May 3;326(7396):966-9
pubmed: 12727771
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1992;23(3):223-32
pubmed: 1463862
BMJ. 2004 Apr 24;328(7446):1010-2
pubmed: 15105329
BMJ. 2004 Aug 21;329(7463):435-8
pubmed: 15321902
J Adv Nurs. 2004 Nov;48(4):388-96
pubmed: 15500533
Qual Health Res. 2004 Dec;14(10):1342-65
pubmed: 15538004
Physiother Res Int. 2004;9(3):121-31
pubmed: 15560669
J Adv Nurs. 2005 Apr;50(2):204-11
pubmed: 15788085
J Gen Intern Med. 2005 May;20(5):432-7
pubmed: 15963167
J Med Screen. 2005;12(3):134-41
pubmed: 16156944
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Apr 16;8:21
pubmed: 18416812
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Aug;72(2):283-92
pubmed: 18490127
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Oct;17(5):334-8
pubmed: 18842971
Clin Psychol Rev. 2009 Aug;29(6):496-505
pubmed: 19541399
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Aug 11;9:59
pubmed: 19671152
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009 Oct;35(10):497-501
pubmed: 19886088
BMC Med. 2011 Apr 14;9:39
pubmed: 21492447
BMC Womens Health. 2011 May 25;11:18
pubmed: 21612599
J Cancer Educ. 2012 Mar;27(1):156-64
pubmed: 22072125
J Health Psychol. 2003 Jan;8(1):7-23
pubmed: 22113897
Acad Med. 2012 Apr;87(4):392-4
pubmed: 22452913
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012 Apr;38(4):168-76
pubmed: 22533129
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD007456
pubmed: 22696369
Health Technol Assess. 2013 Mar;17(13):1-170, v-vi
pubmed: 23540978
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;122(5):1033-9
pubmed: 24104784
J Clin Nurs. 2014 Jul;23(13-14):2053-62
pubmed: 24313329
Fam Pract. 2014 Oct;31(5):592-7
pubmed: 25070182
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 May;151(5):513-21
pubmed: 25831475
Int J Med Inform. 2015 Oct;84(10):737-42
pubmed: 26183642
Res Synth Methods. 2015 Dec;6(4):357-71
pubmed: 26220201
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):179-87
pubmed: 26262565
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 29;6(1):e009388
pubmed: 26826147
Health Promot Pract. 2017 Sep;18(5):645-653
pubmed: 28129691
Nurse Res. 2004 Sep 1;12(1):82-83
pubmed: 28718745
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Nov;14(11):1489-1497
pubmed: 29101973
Soc Sci Med. 1995 Apr;40(7):903-18
pubmed: 7792630
Prev Med. 1994 May;23(3):276-83
pubmed: 8078847
Br J Clin Psychol. 1994 Feb;33 ( Pt 1):1-10
pubmed: 8173536
Br J Gen Pract. 1996 Oct;46(411):567-8
pubmed: 8945791
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Mar 1;126(5):389-91
pubmed: 9054284
BMJ. 1998 Apr 18;316(7139):1230-2
pubmed: 9583929