Psychosocial consequences of screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurisms: a cross-sectional study

References

• Reimerink JJ, van der Laan MJ, Koelemay MJ, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg. 2013;100(11):1405–1413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman PE, Jamrozik K, Lawrence-Brown MM, et al. Population based randomised controlled trial on impact of screening on mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm. BMJ. 2004;329(7477):1259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindholt JS, Sørensen J, Søgaard R, et al. Long-term benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms from a randomized controlled trial. Br J Surg. 2010;97(6):826–834.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashton HA, Buxton MJ, Day NE, Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study Group, et al. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9345):1531–1539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson SG, Ashton HA, Gao L, Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) Group, et al. Final follow-up of the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Br J Surg. 2012;99(12):1649–1656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederle FA. Does abdominal aortic aneurysm screening save lives? JAMA Surg. 2016;151(8):697–698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guirguis-Blake JM, Beil TL, Senger CA, et al. Ultrasonography screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(5):321–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanhainen A, Hultgren R, Linne A, On behalf of the Swedish Aneurysm Screening Study Group (SASS), et al. Outcome of the Swedish Nationwide Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Program. Circ. 2016;134(16):1141–1148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson M, Zahl PH, Siersma V, et al. Benefits and harms of screening men for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden: a registry-based cohort study. Lancet. 2018;391(10138):2441–2447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodersen J, Thorsen H. Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer (COS-BC): development of a questionnaire. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2008;26(4):251–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertero C, Carlsson P, Lundgren F. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm, a one-year follow up: an interview study. J Vasc Nurs. 2010;28(3):97–101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pettersson M, Hansson A, Brodersen J, et al. Experiences of the screening process and the diagnosis abdominal aortic aneurysm among 65-year-old men from invitation to a 1-year surveillance. J Vasc Nurs. 2017;35(2):70–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson A, Brodersen J, Reventlow S, et al. Opening Pandora's box: the experiences of having an asymptomatic aortic aneurysm under surveillance. Health Risk Soc. 2012;14(4):341–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucarotti M, Heather B, Shaw E, et al. Psychological morbidity associated with abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1997;14(6):499–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindholt JS, Vammen S, Fasting H, et al. Psychological consequences of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm and conservative treatment of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000;20(1):79–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer CA, Norman PE, Jamrozik K, et al. Is screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm bad for your health and well-being? ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(12):1069–1075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanhainen A, Rosén C, Rutegård J, et al. Low quality of life prior to screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a possible risk factor for negative mental effects. Ann Vasc Surg. 2004;18(3):287–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lesjak M, Boreland F, Lyle D, et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: does it affect men's quality of life? Aust J Prim Health. 2012;18(4):284–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodersen J, Doward L, Thorsen H, et al. Patient reported outcome scales for health sciences: from medical paternalism to patient-autonomy. Rasch Relat Models Methods Health Sci. 2009;5:281–302.
   Google Scholar
• Brodersen J, Hansson A, Johansson M, et al. Consequences of screening in abdominal aortic aneurysm: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2:37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DeFrank JT, Barclay C, Sheridan S, et al. The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(2):242–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmquist J. Psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening: adequacy of measurement and effects. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Brodersen J, Siersma VD. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(2):106–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen JF, Siersma V, Pedersen JH, et al. Psychosocial consequences in the Danish randomised controlled lung cancer screening trial (DLCST). Lung Cancer. 2015;87(1):65–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gram I, Lund E, Slenker S. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer. 1990;62(6):1018–1022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Østerø J, Siersma V, Brodersen J. Breast cancer screening implementation and reassurance. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(2):258–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotter AR, Vuong K, Mustelin LL, et al. Do psychological harms result from being labelled with an unexpected diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm or prostate cancer through screening? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e017565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byskov Petersen G, Sadolin Damhus C, Ryborg Jønsson AB, et al. The perception gap: how the benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening are understood in information material focusing on informed choice. Health Risk Soc. 2020;22(2):177–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damhus CS, Byskov Petersen G, Ploug T, et al. Informed or misinformed choice? Framing effects in a national information pamphlet on colorectal cancer screening. Health Risk Soc. 2018;20(5–6):241–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Org. 2001;79(4):373–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar