Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Psychooncology. 2024 Apr;33(4):e6334. doi: 10.1002/pon.6334.
(i) To systematically identify constructs and outcome measures used to assess the emotional and mood impact of false positive breast screening test results; (ii) to appraise the reporting clarity and rationale for selecting constructs and outcome measures.
Databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were systematically searched from 1970. Studies using standardised and non-standardised outcome measures to evaluate the emotion or mood impact of false positive breast screening test results were eligible. A 15-item coding scheme was devised to appraise articles on clarity and rationale for selected constructs and measures.
Forty-seven articles were identified. The most investigated constructs were general anxiety and depression and disease-specific anxiety and worry. Twenty-two standardised general outcome questionnaire measures and three standardised disease-specific outcome questionnaire measures were identified. Twenty articles used non-standardised scales/items. Reporting of constructs and outcome measures was generally clear, but rationales for their selection were lacking. Anxiety was typically justified, but justification for depression was almost always absent. Practical and psychometric justification for selecting outcome measures was lacking, and theoretical rationale was absent.
Heterogeneity in constructs and measures, coupled with unclear rationale for these, impedes a thorough understanding of why there are emotional effects of false positive screening test results. This may explain the repeated practice of investigating less relevant outcomes such as depression. There is need to develop a consensual conceptual model of and standardised approach to measuring emotional impact from cancer screening test results, to address heterogeneity and other known issues of interpreting an inconsistent evidence base.
（一）系统地确定用于评估假阳性乳腺筛查试验结果对情绪和心境影响的结构和结果测量指标；（二）评价报告的清晰度以及选择结构和结果测量指标的原理。
系统地从 1970 年开始在数据库（MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO）中进行搜索。使用标准化和非标准化结果测量指标评估假阳性乳腺筛查试验结果对情绪或心境影响的研究符合入选标准。设计了一个 15 项的编码方案，用于评价文章中选择的结构和措施的清晰度和原理。
确定了 47 篇文章。研究最多的结构是一般焦虑和抑郁以及疾病特异性焦虑和担忧。确定了 22 种标准化一般结局问卷测量指标和 3 种标准化疾病特异性结局问卷测量指标。20 篇文章使用了非标准化量表/项目。结构和结果测量指标的报告通常很清楚，但缺乏选择的原理。焦虑通常是合理的，但对抑郁的合理性几乎总是不存在。选择结果测量指标缺乏实际和心理计量学上的合理性，也缺乏理论上的合理性。
结构和措施的异质性，加上对这些结构和措施的原理缺乏明确的认识，阻碍了对假阳性筛查试验结果产生情绪影响的原因的全面理解。这可能解释了为什么反复研究不太相关的结果，如抑郁。需要制定一个共识性的癌症筛查试验结果的情绪影响的概念模型和标准化方法，以解决解释不一致的证据基础的异质性和其他已知问题。
