IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v49y1999i12p1571-1598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychological impact of predicting individuals' risks of illness: a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Shaw, Chris
  • Abrams, Keith
  • Marteau, Theresa M.

Abstract

The aim of this review is to determine the frequency and circumstances under which predicting individuals' risk of illness has adverse psychological effects. Using systematic review methodology, the literature was searched for studies that had assessed the adverse psychological outcomes of risk assessment programmes. The outcomes investigated are emotional (anxiety, depression, distress) cognitive (intrusive thoughts, perceptions of health) and behaviour (work absenteeism). The impact of both positive and negative test results are summarised in terms of the number of studies showing significant effects between and within groups in the short (one month or less) and longer term (more than one month). Where sufficient data were available, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess effect size. Fifty-four studies met the criteria for inclusion. The studies assessed the impact of informing individuals about cardiovascular risk (21), risk of AIDS (eight), risk of cancer (10), risk of Huntington's disease (10), risk of diabetes (two), risk of spinocerebellar ataxia (one) and risk of osteoporosis (two). Overall, the quality of studies assessed was limited, with only two using a randomised design to determine the psychological impact of risk assessment. Receiving a positive test result was associated in the short term in the great majority of studies with depression, anxiety, poorer perceptions of health and psychological distress. Data were available for a quantitative synthesis of results on three outcomes, anxiety, depression and distress. Anxiety and depression were significantly higher in those tested positive compared with those tested negative in the short term but not the longer term. Distress could only be assessed in the longer term: there was no evidence of an increase for those receiving positive test results. The five experimental studies that reported interventions aimed at preventing some of these adverse effects all reported favourable results. There was little evidence of any adverse psychological effects of receiving an unfavourable test result. Adverse psychological effects are a common immediate consequence of positive test results following risk assessment. Results from the few experimental studies reviewed suggest that these adverse outcomes should not be seen as inevitable.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaw, Chris & Abrams, Keith & Marteau, Theresa M., 1999. "Psychological impact of predicting individuals' risks of illness: a systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(12), pages 1571-1598, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:12:p:1571-1598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00244-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Manning, Mark & Albrecht, Terrance L. & Yilmaz-Saab, Zeynep & Shultz, Julie & Purrington, Kristen, 2016. "Influences of race and breast density on related cognitive and emotion outcomes before mandated breast density notification," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 171-179.
    2. Orbell, Sheina & O'Sullivan, Ian & Parker, Ron & Steele, Bob & Campbell, Christine & Weller, David, 2008. "Illness representations and coping following an abnormal colorectal cancer screening result," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1465-1474, November.
    3. Hendy, Jane & Vandrevala, Tushna & Ahmed, Ayesha & Kelly, Claire & Gray, Lucy & Ala, Aftab, 2019. "Feeling misidentified: Understanding migrant's readiness to engage in health care screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Patrick M. M. Bossuyt & Kirsten McCaffery, 2009. "Additional Patient Outcomes and Pathways in Evaluations of Testing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(5), pages 30-38, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:49:y:1999:i:12:p:1571-1598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.