• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

阴性筛查试验结果是否会造成虚假的安心感?一项系统性回顾。

Do negative screening test results cause false reassurance? A systematic review.

机构信息

The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe, UK.

Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, UK.

出版信息

Br J Health Psychol. 2017 Nov;22(4):958-977. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12265. Epub 2017 Sep 12.

DOI:10.1111/bjhp.12265
PMID:28895257
Abstract

PURPOSE

It has been suggested that receiving a negative screening test result may cause false reassurance or have a 'certificate of health effect'. False reassurance in those receiving a negative screening test result may result in them wrongly believing themselves to be at lower risk of the disease, and consequently less likely to engage in health-related behaviours that would lower their risk.

METHODS

The present systematic review aimed to identify the evidence regarding false reassurance effects due to negative screening test results in adults (over 18 years) screened for the presence of a disease or its precursors, where disease or precursors are linked to lifestyle behaviours. MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched for trials that compared a group who had received negative screening results to an unscreened control group. The following outcomes were considered as markers of false reassurance: perceived risk of disease; anxiety and worry about disease; health-related behaviours or intention to change health-related behaviours (i.e., smoking, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption); self-rated health status.

RESULTS

Nine unique studies were identified, reporting 55 measures in relation to the outcomes considered. Outcomes were measured at various time points from immediately following screening to up to 11 years after screening. Despite considerable variation in outcome measures used and timing of measurements, effect sizes for comparisons between participants who received negative screening test results and control participants were typically small with few statistically significant differences. There was evidence of high risk of bias, and measures of behaviours employed were often not valid.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence base provided little evidence of false reassurance following a negative screening test results on any of four outcomes examined. False reassurance should not be considered a significant harm of screening, but further research is warranted. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? It has been argued that screening for disease may cause 'false reassurance' whereby those who receive a negative screening test result wrongly interpret their result as indicating they are less likely to develop the disease in future. There is some evidence for false reassurance, but the relevant studies consider a range of diseases and possible indicators of false reassurance (i.e., risk perceptions, lifestyle behaviours, emotional outcomes, and quality of life). For these reasons, it is currently unclear that the extent to receive negative screening test results is likely to impact on participants' lifestyle behaviours, or other possible indicators of false reassurance. What does this study add? Current available evidence shows that negative screening test results are unlikely to cause false reassurance and, in particular, are unlikely to have a negative impact on lifestyle behaviours. Given the limitations of the current evidence base in terms of number of studies and study quality, future research should continue to explore this issue, where this can be done at low cost.

摘要

目的

有人认为,接受阴性筛查检测结果可能会带来虚假的安心感,或者产生“健康证明效应”。那些接受阴性筛查检测结果的人可能会错误地认为自己患病风险较低,因此不太可能采取降低患病风险的健康相关行为。

方法

本系统评价旨在确定有关在成年人(18 岁以上)中筛查疾病或其前期指标时,由于阴性筛查检测结果而产生的虚假安心感效应的证据,其中疾病或前期指标与生活方式行为相关。使用 MEDLINE 和 PsycINFO 搜索了比较接受阴性筛查结果的组与未经筛查的对照组的试验。将以下结果视为虚假安心感的标志物:疾病风险感知;对疾病的焦虑和担忧;健康相关行为或改变健康相关行为的意愿(即吸烟、饮食、体育活动和饮酒);自我评估的健康状况。

结果

确定了 9 项独特的研究,报告了与所考虑的结果相关的 55 项措施。结果是在筛查后立即到筛查后 11 年内的不同时间点测量的。尽管使用的结果测量指标和测量时间存在很大差异,但与接受阴性筛查检测结果的参与者和对照组参与者相比,通常效果较小,差异很少具有统计学意义。存在高偏倚风险的证据,并且所采用的行为措施通常不具有有效性。

结论

有限的证据基础几乎没有提供关于四个被检查结果中的任何一个接受阴性筛查检测结果后产生虚假安心感的证据。不应该将虚假安心感视为筛查的主要危害,但需要进一步研究。

贡献说明

关于这个主题,目前已经知道了什么?有人认为,疾病筛查可能会导致“虚假安心感”,即那些接受阴性筛查检测结果的人错误地将结果解释为表明他们未来患疾病的可能性较低。有一些虚假安心感的证据,但相关研究考虑了一系列疾病和可能的虚假安心感指标(即风险感知、生活方式行为、情绪结果和生活质量)。因此,目前尚不清楚接受阴性筛查检测结果的程度是否会影响参与者的生活方式行为或其他可能的虚假安心感指标。

本研究增加了哪些内容?目前可用的证据表明,阴性筛查检测结果不太可能导致虚假安心感,特别是不太可能对生活方式行为产生负面影响。鉴于当前证据基础在研究数量和研究质量方面的局限性,未来的研究应继续探索这一问题,在可行的情况下以较低的成本进行研究。

相似文献

1
Do negative screening test results cause false reassurance? A systematic review.阴性筛查试验结果是否会造成虚假的安心感?一项系统性回顾。
Br J Health Psychol. 2017 Nov;22(4):958-977. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12265. Epub 2017 Sep 12.
2
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
3
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.对紫杉醇、多西他赛、吉西他滨和长春瑞滨在非小细胞肺癌中的临床疗效和成本效益进行的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320.
4
Surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus: exploring the uncertainty through systematic review, expert workshop and economic modelling.巴雷特食管的监测:通过系统评价、专家研讨会和经济模型探索不确定性
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Mar;10(8):1-142, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta10080.
5
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
6
Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.针对女性的干预措施,以鼓励她们接受宫颈癌筛查。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 6;9(9):CD002834. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub3.
7
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.拓扑替康治疗卵巢癌的临床有效性和成本效益的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280.
8
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
9
Exercise interventions and patient beliefs for people with hip, knee or hip and knee osteoarthritis: a mixed methods review.髋、膝或髋膝骨关节炎患者的运动干预和患者信念:一项混合方法综述
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 17;4(4):CD010842. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010842.pub2.
10
Incentives for preventing smoking in children and adolescents.预防儿童和青少年吸烟的激励措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 6;6(6):CD008645. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008645.pub3.

引用本文的文献

1
Psychological and behavioural considerations for integrating polygenic risk scores for disease into clinical practice.将疾病多基因风险评分纳入临床实践的心理和行为学考量
Nat Hum Behav. 2025 May 12. doi: 10.1038/s41562-025-02200-x.
2
Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study.多癌种早期检测筛查在初级保健医生和非医学专业人士中的认知:一项定性研究。
Cancer Med. 2024 Nov;13(21):e70281. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70281.
3
Pychological mpact of the leri test (sIG(n)al): protocol for a longitudinal evaluation of the psychological impact of receiving a cancer signal in the NHS-Galleri trial.
Leri 试验(sIG(n)al)的心理影响:一项纵向评估 NHS-Galleri 试验中收到癌症信号后心理影响的方案。
BMJ Open. 2023 Jul 21;13(7):e072657. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072657.
4
Psychological impact of risk-stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme: multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).NHS 乳腺癌筛查项目中风险分层筛查的心理影响:BC-Predict 与常规筛查的多中心非随机比较(NCT04359420)。
Br J Cancer. 2023 Apr;128(8):1548-1558. doi: 10.1038/s41416-023-02156-7. Epub 2023 Feb 11.
5
Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening.初级保健中的主动乳腺癌风险评估:基于筛查原则的综述。
Br J Cancer. 2023 May;128(9):1636-1646. doi: 10.1038/s41416-023-02145-w. Epub 2023 Feb 3.
6
The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a 'think-aloud' study.个性化 10 年乳腺癌风险沟通的共同制定:一项“出声思考”研究。
BMC Cancer. 2022 Dec 5;22(1):1264. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10347-3.
7
Introducing a low-risk breast screening pathway into the NHS Breast Screening Programme: Views from healthcare professionals who are delivering risk-stratified screening.将低风险乳腺癌筛查途径引入国民保健制度乳腺筛查计划:实施风险分层筛查的医疗保健专业人员的观点。
Womens Health (Lond). 2021 Jan-Dec;17:17455065211009746. doi: 10.1177/17455065211009746.
8
Effect of SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening on participants' attitudes and behaviour: a study of industry workers in Split, Croatia.新冠病毒抗体筛查对参与者态度和行为的影响:克罗地亚斯普利特产业工人研究。
Public Health. 2021 Feb;191:11-16. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.12.001. Epub 2020 Dec 7.
9
Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging.在一项先进行自身抗体血液检测随后进行成像的随机试验中对肺癌进行早期诊断。
Eur Respir J. 2021 Jan 14;57(1). doi: 10.1183/13993003.00670-2020. Print 2021 Jan.
10
What are the benefits and harms of risk stratified screening as part of the NHS breast screening Programme? Study protocol for a multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).风险分层筛查作为国民保健制度乳房筛查计划的一部分有哪些益处和危害?BC-predict 与常规筛查的多中心非随机比较研究方案(NCT04359420)。
BMC Cancer. 2020 Jun 18;20(1):570. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07054-2.