Psychological consequences of cancer screening in HIV.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is a growing awareness of the increase in non-AIDS-defining cancers (NADC) in the HIV-infected population. Cancer screening is one means of reducing morbidity and mortality, but such screening may have psychological consequences across those with high and low-risk results, such as increased anxiety, worry and potential behavior change like increased self-examination or medical follow-up. This review examines the literature on psychological consequences of screening for NADC in HIV-infected populations. RECENT FINDINGS: Anal cancer is the only cancer type in which the psychological consequence of screening has been investigated in HIV-infected populations. Screening increases worry about anal cancer, particularly in those who are younger, have higher baseline anxiety or more symptoms. Participants with low-risk results show unrealistic optimism; this is a potential concern as it may lead to unrealistic beliefs about future risk, the need for healthy behaviors or follow-up screening. The lack of standardized screening protocols and programs makes assessing psychological consequences difficult. SUMMARY: More research is needed to determine if HIV populations differ from general population studies. Increased health promotion or symptom awareness is important for NADC with no standardized screening. Screening programs need to be aware of the potential for increased anxiety and worry and provide support as needed.

Identifying and describing feelings and psychological flexibility predict mental health in men with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty identifying and describing feelings (DIDF) and psychological flexibility (PF) predict poor emotional adjustment. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between DIDF and PF and whether DIDF and low PF would put men undergoing cancer screening at risk for poor adjustment. DESIGN: Longitudinal self-report survey. METHODS: Two hundred and one HIV-infected men who have sex with men participated in anal cancer screening at two time points over 14 weeks. Psychological flexibility was assessed by the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II and DIDF by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20. We also measured depression, anxiety, stress (DASS) and health-related quality of life (QOL; SF-12). RESULTS: Both DIDF and PF were reliable predictors of mental health. When levels of baseline mental health were controlled, greater DIDF predicted increases in Time 2 depression, anxiety and stress and decreases in mental and physical QOL. The link between PF and mental health was entirely mediated by DIDF. CONCLUSIONS: Being chronically low in PF could lead to greater DIDF and thereby worse mental health. Having more PF promotes the ability to identify and differentiate the nuances of pleasant and unpleasant emotions, which enhances an individual's mental health. Intentionally enhancing men's ability to identify and describe feelings or PF may assist them to better manage a range of difficult life experiences such as health screenings and other potentially threatening information.

The psychological impact of anal cancer screening on HIV-infected men.

BACKGROUND: Anal cancer rates are increasing in HIV-infected men. Screening programmes similar to prostate and cervical cancer have been recommended to reduce morbidity and mortality. Research shows that screening processes have psychological consequences that need to be considered. Limited investigation of the psychological impact of anal cancer screening has been conducted. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal survey of 291 men was conducted at three time points over 14 weeks at a public HIV clinic in Sydney, Australia. Self-report questionnaires measuring worry, distress, depression, anxiety, stress and health-related quality of life (SF-12) were collected. RESULTS: Those who had a biopsy recommended were significantly more worried about anal cancer, rated their anal health worse and were less optimistic about their future health than the control group who needed no further medical investigation. The group receiving high grade histology results remained worried about anal cancer at time 3. We found no evidence that general anxiety, depression or quality of life was significantly affected by the process. CONCLUSIONS: Anal cancer specific worry increases throughout the screening process. Clear communication prior to procedures about the procedure itself, potential adverse events, the recovery process and non-technical explanations of results should be implemented in anal screening programmes.