Emotional response to testing positive for human papillomavirus at cervical cancer screening: a mixed method systematic review with meta-analysis.
Human papillomavirus (HPV)
cervical cancer screening
emotion
meta-analysis
mixed method review
psychological
Journal
Health psychology review
ISSN: 1743-7202
Titre abrégé: Health Psychol Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101299723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
26
5
2020
medline:
8
4
2022
entrez:
26
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tens-of-millions of women every year test positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at routine cervical screening. We performed a mixed-methods systematic review using a results-based convergent design to provide the first comprehensive overview of emotional response to testing positive for HPV (HPV+). We mapped our findings using the cognitive behavioural framework. Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 09-Nov-2019 and 33 papers were included. Random-effects meta-analyses revealed that HPV+ women with abnormal or normal cytology displayed higher short-term anxiety than those with normal results (MD on State-Trait Anxiety Inventory = 7.6, 95% CI: 4.59-10.60 and MD = 6.33, CI: 1.31-11.35, respectively); there were no long-term differences. Psychological distress (general/sexual/test-specific) was higher in HPV+ women with abnormal cytology in the short-term and long-term (SMD = 0.68, CI: 0.32-1.03 and SMD = 0.42, CI: 0.05-0.80, respectively). Testing HPV+ was also related to disgust/shame, surprise and fear about cancer. Broadly, adverse response related to eight cognitive constructs (low control, confusion, cancer-related concerns, relationship concerns, sexual concerns, uncertainty, stigma, low trust) and six behavioural constructs (relationship problems, social impact, non-disclosure of results, idiosyncratic prevention, indirect clinical interaction, changes to sexual practice). Almost exclusive use of observational and qualitative designs limited inferences of causality and conclusions regarding clinical significance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32449477
doi: 10.1080/17437199.2020.1762106
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
395-429Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : DRF-2017-10-105
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C7492/A17219
Pays : United Kingdom