Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

References

• Krogsgaard MR, Brodersen J, Christensen KB, et al. What is a PROM and why do we need it? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;31(5):967–971. doi:10.1111/sms.13892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston B, Patrick D, Devji D, et al. Patient-reported outcomes. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley Online Library; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Brodersen J, McKenna S, Doward L, Thorsen H. Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening. Commentary. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brodersen J, Siersma VD. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(2):106–115. doi:10.1370/afm.1466
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Kreiner S. Consequences of screening in lung cancer: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire. Value Health. 2010;13(5):601–612. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00697.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damhus CS, Siersma V, Hansson A, Bang CW, Brodersen J. Psychosocial consequences of screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurisms: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2021;39(4):459–465. doi:10.1080/02813432.2021.2004713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cockburn J, Staples M, Hurley SF, De Luise T. Psychological consequences of screening mammography. J Med Screen. 1994;1(1):7–12. doi:10.1177/096914139400100104
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hansen CF, Jensen J, Brodersen J, Siersma V, Comins JD, Krogsgaard MR. Are adequate PROMs used as outcomes in randomized controlled trials? An analysis of 54 trials. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;31(5):972–981. doi:10.1111/sms.13896
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1015–1024. doi:10.1111/hex.13254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(1):52–60. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00537-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krogsgaard MR, Brodersen J, Jensen J, Hansen CF, Comins JD. Potential problems in the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and reporting of PROM data in sports science. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;31(6):1249–1258. doi:10.1111/sms.13888
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Cockburn J. The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography. J Med Screen. 2004;11:39–44. doi:10.1177/096914130301100109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5. doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The National Health Service (NHS). NHS screening. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-screening/. Accessed August 31, 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, de Vet HC, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–1179. doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–1157. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bombardier C, Tugwell P. Methodological considerations in functional assessment. J Rheumatol. 1987;14(Suppl 15):6–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alrubaiy L, Hutchings HA, Williams JG. Assessing patient reported outcome measures: a practical guide for gastroenterologists. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2014;2(6):463–470. doi:10.1177/2050640614558345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner D. A checklist for evaluating the usefulness of rating scale. Can J Psychiatry. 1993;38(2):140–148. doi:10.1177/070674379303800214
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gram EG, Malmqvist J, Agerbeck A, Martiny F, Bie AK, Brodersen JB. Psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening in the general population: a systematic review on the adequacy of measurement properties (CRD42016051608). PROSPERO; 2022. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=51608&VersionID=1300958. Accessed March 2, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–745. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–1170. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr PJ, Elwyn G. Measurement challenges in shared decision making: putting the ‘patient’ in patient-reported measures. Health Expect. 2016;19(5):993–1001. doi:10.1111/hex.12380
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiering B, de Boer D, Delnoij D. Patient involvement in the development of patient‐reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2017;20(1):11–23. doi:10.1111/hex.12442
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna SP, Heaney A. Setting and maintaining standards for patient-reported outcome measures: can we rely on the COSMIN checklists? J Med Econ. 2021;24(1):502–511. doi:10.1080/13696998.2021.1907092
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander F, Weller D, Orbell S, et al. Evaluation of the UK colorectal cancer screening pilot - final report; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Bobridge A, Young G, Lewis H, Cole S, Bampton P. Does participating in the national bowel cancer screening program have a psychological impact? 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Bobridge A, Bampton P, Cole S, Lewis H, Young G. The psychological impact of participating in colorectal cancer screening by faecal immuno-chemical testing--the Australian experience. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(5):970–975. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasso K, Ladelund S, Frederiksen BL, Jorgensen T. Psychological distress following fecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening--a population-based study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;45(10):1211–1216. doi:10.3109/00365521.2010.485355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu HC, Hung HY, Lin HC, Chen SC. Effects of a health education and telephone counseling program on patients with a positive fecal occult blood test result for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology. 2017;26(10):1498–1504. doi:10.1002/pon.4319
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christy SM, Schmidt A, Wang HL, et al. Understanding cancer worry among patients in a community clinic-based colorectal cancer screening intervention study. Nurs Res. 2018;67(4):275–285. doi:10.1097/NNR.0000000000000275
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denters MJ, Deutekom M, Essink-Bot ML, Bossuyt PM, Fockens P, Dekker E. FIT false-positives in colorectal cancer screening experience psychological distress up to 6 weeks after colonoscopy. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(10):2809–2815. doi:10.1007/s00520-013-1867-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan M, Stoop E, et al. Study protocol- population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography - a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol. 2010;10(47). doi:10.1186/1471-230X-10-47
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM, et al. Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2012;61(11):1552. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagger MS, Orbell S. Illness representations and emotion in people with abnormal screening results. Psychol Health. 2006;21(2):183–209. doi:10.1080/14768320500223339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapidzic A, Korfage IJ, van Dam L, et al. Quality of life in participants of a CRC screening program. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(8):1295–1301. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkoen B, Berstad P, Botteri E, et al. Do no harm: no psychological harm from colorectal cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(5):497–504. doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkoen B, Berstad P, Botteri E, et al. Psychological effects of colorectal cancer screening: participants vs individuals not invited. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(43):9631–9641. doi:10.3748/wjg.v22.i43.9631
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laing SS, Bogart A, Chubak J, Fuller S, Green BB. Psychological distress after a positive fecal occult blood test result among members of an integrated healthcare delivery system. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(1):154–159. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindholm E, Berglund B, Kewenter J, Haglind E. Worry associated with screening for colorectal carcinomas. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997;32(3):238–245. doi:10.3109/00365529709000201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmqvist J, Siersma V, Bang CW, Brodersen J. Consequences of screening in colorectal cancer (COS-CRC): development and dimensionality of a questionnaire. BMC Psychol. 2021;9(1). doi:10.1186/s40359-020-00504-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malmqvist J, Siersma VD, Hestbech MS, Bang CW, Nicolaisdottir DR, Brodersen J. Short and long-term psychosocial consequences of participating in a colorectal cancer screening programme: a matched longitudinal study. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2022;27(2):87–96. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111576
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Malmqvist J, Siersma V, Hestbech MS, Nicolaisdottir DR, Bang CW, Brodersen J. Psychosocial consequences of invitation to colorectal cancer screening: a matched cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2021;75(9):867–873. doi:10.1136/jech-2019-213360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles A, Wardle J. Adverse psychological outcomes in colorectal cancer screening: does health anxiety play a role? Behav Res Ther. 2006;44(8):1117–1127. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.08.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles A, Atkin WS, Kralj-Hans I, Wardle J. The psychological impact of being offered surveillance colonoscopy following attendance at colorectal screening using flexible sigmoidoscopy. J Med Screen. 2009;16(3):124–130. doi:10.1258/jms.2009.009041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles A, McClements PL, Steele RJ, Redeker C, Sevdalis N, Wardle J. The psychological impact of a colorectal cancer diagnosis following a negative fecal occult blood test result. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24(7):1032–1038. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mountifield RE, Bampton PA, Prosser R, Bobridge A, Mikocka-Walus AA, Andrews JM. Mo1962 FIT+ and IBD individuals have differing psychological reactions to the need for colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(5):S705. doi:10.1016/S0016-5085(13)62614-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mountifield RE, Moseley A, Prosser R, et al. Colonoscopic bowel cancer screening is associated with more depression and anxiety in previously healthy people than those with inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(5):S433. doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(11)61777-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orbell S, O’Sullivan I, Parker R, Steele B, Campbell C, Weller D. Illness representations and coping following an abnormal colorectal cancer screening result. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(9):1465–1474. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.06.039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker MA, Robinson MH, Scholefield JH, Hardcastle JD. Psychiatric morbidity and screening for colorectal cancer. J MedScreen. 2002;9:7–10. doi:10.1136/jms.9.1.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robb KA, Lo SH, Power E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes following flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer in a demonstration screening programme in the UK. J Med Screen. 2012;19(4):171–176. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp L, Shearer N, Leen R, O’Morain C, McNamara D. Prevalence and predictors of colonoscopy-related distress in individuals undergoing fit-based colorectal cancer screening: a population-based study. Presented at: the Irish Society of Gastroenterology Winter Meeting, November 2013; 2015: The Malton Hotel, Killarney, Co. Kerry. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25686788. Accessed March 2, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Simon AE, Steptoe A, Wardle J. Socioeconomic status differences in coping with a stressful medical procedure. Psychosom Med. 2005;67(2):270–276. doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000155665.55439.53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiis-Evensen E, Wilhelmsen I, Hoff GS, Blomhoff S, Sauar J. The psychologic effect of attending a screening program for colorectal polyps. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1999;34(1):103–109. doi:10.1080/00365529950172916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taupin D, Chambers SL, Corbett M, Shadbolt B. Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer improves quality of life measures: a population-based screening study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):82. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-82
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Boellaard TN, de Haan MC, et al. Burden of waiting for surveillance CT colonography in patients with screen-detected 6–9 mm polyps. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(11):4000–4010. doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4251-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dam L, de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, et al. Time requirements and health effects of participation in colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy or computed tomography colonography in a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2013;45(3):182–188. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1326080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermeer NCA, van der Valk MJM, Snijders HS, et al. Psychological distress and quality of life following positive fecal occult blood testing in colorectal cancer screening. Psychooncology. 2020;29(6):1084–1091. doi:10.1002/pon.5381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardle J, Williamson S, Sutton S, et al. Psychological impact of colorectal cancer screening. Health Psychol. 2003;22(1):54–59. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.22.1.54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alper BS, Oettgen P, Kunnamo I, et al. Defining certainty of net benefit: a GRADE concept paper. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e027445. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, et al. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2013;17(13). doi:10.3310/hta17130
   Web of Science ®Google 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. doi:10.1007/s11606-014-2996-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heiberg Agerbeck A, Martiny FHJ, Jauernik CP, et al. Validity of current assessment tools aiming to measure the affective component of pain: a systematic review. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2021;12:213–226. doi:10.2147/PROM.S304950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeFrank J, Brewer NT. Some more evidence of long-term psychosocial harms from receiving false-positive screening mammography results. Evid Based Med. 2014;19(1):38. doi:10.1136/eb-2013-101409
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hobart JC, Williams LS, Moran K, Thompson AJ. Quality of life measurement after stroke: uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke. 2002;33(5):1348–1356. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000015030.59594.B3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entwistle VA, Skea ZC, O’Donnell MT. Decisions about treatment: interpretations of two measures of control by women having a hysterectomy. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53(6):721–732. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00382-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davey HM, Lim J, Butow PN, Barratt AL, Redman S. Women’s preferences for and views on decision-making for diagnostic tests. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(9):1699–1707. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00339-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Velde JL, Blanker MH, Stegmann ME, de Bock GH, Berger MY, Berendsen AJ. A systematic review of the psychological impact of false-positive colorectal cancer screening: what is the role of the general practitioner? Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017;26(3):e12709. doi:10.1111/ecc.12709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chad-Friedman E, Coleman S, Traeger LN, et al. Psychological distress associated with cancer screening: a systematic review. Cancer. 2017;123(20):3882–3894. doi:10.1002/cncr.30904
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selva A, Selva C, Alvarez-Perez Y, et al. Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):230. doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01430-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodersen J, Thorsen H. Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer (COS-BC): development of a questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2008;26:251–256. doi:10.1080/02813430802542508
   Google Scholar
• Birney DP, Beckmann JF, Beckmann N, Stemler SE. Sophisticated statistics cannot compensate for method effects if quantifiable structure is compromised. Front Psychol. 2022;13:812963. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.812963
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar