Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open ; 7(12): e017565, 2017 12 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29237653

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: A potential psychological harm of screening is unexpected diagnosis-labelling. We need to know the frequency and severity of this harm to make informed decisions about screening. We asked whether current evidence allows an estimate of any psychological harm of labelling. As case studies, we used two conditions for which screening is common: prostate cancer (PCa) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). DESIGN: Systematic review with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We searched the English language literature in PubMed, PsychINFO and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for research of any design published between 1 January 2002 and 23 January 2017 that provided valid data about the psychological state of people recently diagnosed with early stage PCa or AAA. Two authors independently used explicit criteria to review and critically appraise all studies for bias, applicability and the extent to which it provided evidence about the frequency and severity of harm from labelling. RESULTS: 35 quantitative studies (30 of PCa and 5 of AAA) met our criteria, 17 (48.6%) of which showed possible or definite psychological harm from labelling. None of these studies, however, had either appropriate measures or relevant comparisons to estimate the frequency and severity of psychological harm. Four PCa and three AAA qualitative studies all showed clear evidence of at least moderate psychological harm from labelling. Seven population-based studies found increased suicide in patients recently diagnosed with PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Although qualitative and population-based studies show that at least moderate psychological harm due to screening for PCa and AAA does occur, the current quantitative evidence is insufficient to allow a more precise estimation of frequency and severity. More sensitive measures and improved research designs are needed to fully characterise this harm. In the meantime, clinicians and recommendation panels should be aware of the occurrence of this harm.


Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/efeitos adversos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/psicologia , Programas de Rastreamento/efeitos adversos , Programas de Rastreamento/psicologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Trauma Psicológico/etiologia , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/psicologia , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias da Próstata/psicologia
2.
Am J Prev Med ; 39(3): 263-72, 2010 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20709259

RESUMO

CONTEXT: Adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth and low birth weight, have serious health consequences across the life course. Socioeconomic disparities in birth outcomes have not been the subject of a recent systematic review. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the association of socioeconomic disadvantage with adverse birth outcomes, with specific attention to the strength and consistency of effects across socioeconomic measures, birth outcomes, and populations. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant articles published from 1999 to 2007 were obtained through electronic database searches and manual searches of reference lists. English-language studies from industrialized countries were included if (1) study objectives included examination of a socioeconomic disparity in a birth outcome and (2) results were presented on the association between a socioeconomic predictor and a birth outcome related to birth weight, gestational age, or intrauterine growth. Two reviewers extracted data and independently rated study quality; data were analyzed in 2008-2009. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ninety-three of 106 studies reported a significant association, overall or within a population subgroup, between a socioeconomic measure and a birth outcome. Socioeconomic disadvantage was consistently associated with increased risk across socioeconomic measures, birth outcomes, and countries; many studies observed racial/ethnic differences in the effect of socioeconomic measures. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic differences in birth outcomes remain pervasive, with substantial variation by racial or ethnic subgroup, and are associated with disadvantage measured at multiple levels (individual/family, neighborhood) and time points (childhood, adulthood), and with adverse health behaviors that are themselves socially patterned. Future reviews should focus on identifying interventions to successfully reduce socioeconomic disparities in birth outcomes.


Assuntos
Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Complicações na Gravidez/etiologia , Resultado da Gravidez/epidemiologia , Nascimento Prematuro/etiologia , Etnicidade/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Recém-Nascido de Baixo Peso , Recém-Nascido , Gravidez , Nascimento Prematuro/epidemiologia , Grupos Raciais/estatística & dados numéricos , Risco , Fatores Socioeconômicos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA