Cull A, Anderson E D, Campbell S, Mackay J, Smyth E, Steel M
ICRF Medical Oncology Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Br J Cancer. 1999 Feb;79(3-4):501-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690078.
Women referred to a familial breast cancer clinic completed questionnaires before and after counselling and at annual follow-up to assess their risk estimate and psychological characteristics. The aims were to determine whether those who attended the clinic overestimated their risk or were highly anxious and whether counselling influenced risk estimates and levels of distress. Women (n = 450) at this clinic were more likely to underestimate (39%) than overestimate (14%) their risk. Mean trait anxiety scores were higher than general population data (t = 4.9, n = 1059, P<0.001) but not significantly different from published data from other screening samples. Overestimators (z = 5.69, P<0.0001) and underestimators (z = -8.01, P<0.0001) reported significantly different risk estimates (i.e. increased accuracy) after counselling, but significant inaccuracies persisted. Over- (n = 12) and underestimators (n = 60) were still inaccurate in their risk estimates by a factor of 2 after counselling. Thirty per cent of the sample scored above the cut-off (5/6) for case identification on a screening measure for psychological distress, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). GHQ scores were significantly lower after counselling (t = 3.6, d.f. = 384, P = 0.0004) with no evidence of increasing risk estimate causing increased distress. The risk of distress after counselling was greater for younger women and those who were more distressed at first presentation. The counselling offered was effective in increasing the accuracy of risk perceptions without causing distress to those who initially underestimated their risk. It is worrying that inaccuracies persisted, particularly as the demand for service has since reduced the consultation time offered in this clinic. Further work is needed to evaluate alternative models of service delivery using more sophisticated methods of assessing understanding of risk.
被转诊至家族性乳腺癌诊所的女性在咨询前后以及每年随访时都要填写问卷,以评估她们的风险评估和心理特征。目的是确定那些前往该诊所的女性是否高估了自己的风险或是否高度焦虑,以及咨询是否会影响风险评估和痛苦程度。该诊所的450名女性低估风险的可能性(39%)高于高估风险的可能性(14%)。特质焦虑平均得分高于一般人群数据(t = 4.9,n = 1059,P<0.001),但与其他筛查样本的已发表数据无显著差异。高估者(z = 5.69,P<0.0001)和低估者(z = -8.01,P<0.0001)在咨询后报告的风险评估有显著差异(即准确性提高),但仍存在显著的不准确之处。咨询后,高估者(n = 12)和低估者(n = 60)的风险评估仍有两倍的误差。在心理痛苦筛查量表《一般健康问卷》(GHQ)上,30%的样本得分高于病例识别的临界值(5/6)。咨询后GHQ得分显著降低(t = 3.6,自由度 = 384,P = 0.0004),没有证据表明风险评估增加会导致痛苦加剧。咨询后,年轻女性和初次就诊时更痛苦的女性痛苦风险更大。提供的咨询有效地提高了风险认知的准确性,而没有给最初低估自己风险的人带来痛苦。令人担忧的是,不准确之处仍然存在,特别是因为服务需求减少了该诊所提供的咨询时间。需要进一步开展工作,使用更复杂的风险理解评估方法来评估替代服务模式。