Pilot study of a video intervention to reduce anxiety and promote preparedness for lung cancer screening

Lung cancer screening program factors that influence psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer screening (LCS) programs are being designed and implemented globally. Early data suggests that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are influenced by program factors, but evidence synthesis is needed. This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of service-level factors on psychosocial outcomes to inform optimal LCS program design and future implementation.

METHODS

Four databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were full-text articles published in English that reported an association between any program factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was appraised, and findings were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles were included; 29 studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were RCT (n = 3), pre-post (n = 6), cross-sectional (n = 12), mixed-methods (n = 1), and qualitative (n = 10) studies, and conducted primarily in the USA (n = 25). Findings suggested that targeted interventions can improve smoking-related or decisional psychosocial outcomes (e.g., smoking cessation interventions increase readiness/motivation to quit) but impacts of interventions on other psychological outcomes were varied. There was limited evidence reporting association between service delivery components and psychological outcomes, and results suggested moderation by individual aspects (e.g., expectation of results, baseline anxiety). Opportunities for discussion were key in reducing psychological harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain program factors are reportedly associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, but study heterogeneity and quality necessitate more real-world studies. Future work should examine (a) implementation of targeted interventions and high-value discussion during LCS, and (b) optimal methods and timing of risk and result communication, to improve psychosocial outcomes while reducing time burden for clinicians.

Perceived patient burden and acceptability of MRI in comparison to PSA and ultrasound: results from the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study

BACKGROUND

The IP1-PROSTAGRAM study showed that a short, non-contrast MRI detected more significant cancers with similar rates of biopsy compared to PSA. Herein, we compare the expected and perceived burden of PSA, MRI and ultrasound as screening tests.

METHODS

IP1-PROSTAGRAM was a prospective, population-based, paired screening study of 408 men conducted at seven UK primary care practices and two imaging centres. The screening tests were serum PSA, non-contrast MRI and ultrasound. If any test was screen-positive, a prostate biopsy was performed. Participants completed an Expected Burden Questionnaire (EBQ) and Perceived Burden Questionnaire (PBQ) before and after each screening test.

RESULTS

The overall level of burden for MRI and PSA was minimal. Few men reported high levels of anxiety, burden, embarrassment or pain following either MRI or PSA. Participants indicated an overall preference for MRI after completing all screening tests. Of 408 participants, 194 (47.5%) had no preference, 106 (26.0%) preferred MRI and 79 (19.4%) preferred PSA. This indicates that prior to screening, participants preferred MRI compared to PSA (+6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-8.4, p = 0.02) and after completing screening, the preference for MRI was higher (+21.1%, 95% CI 14.9-27.1, p < 0.001). The proportion of participants who strongly agreed with repeating the test was 50.5% for ultrasound, 65% for MRI and 68% for PSA. A larger proportion of participants found ultrasound anxiety-inducing, burdensome, embarrassing and painful compared to both MRI and PSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostagram MRI and PSA are both acceptable as screening tests among men aged 50-69 years. Both tests were associated with minimal amounts of anxiety, burden, embarrassment and pain. The majority of participants preferred MRI over PSA and ultrasound.

REGISTRATION

This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03702439 .

Effects of a 360° virtual counselling environment on patient anxiety and CCTA process time: A randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated whether a 360° virtual counselling environment (360°VCE) was more effective at decreasing patients' anxiety than routine standard of care counselling for patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), and if there was any difference in the process times for both of these groups.

METHODS

A total of 86 patients underwent CCTA in this randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. The 360°VCE was developed using spherical panoramic images and non-immersive 360° technology. The primary outcome, anxiety, was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The secondary outcome, CCTA process time, was measured from the time of arrival in the department until end of examination.

RESULTS

Pre-scan anxiety was lower among patients in the 360°VCE group immediately before CCTA in comparison to patients in the control group (p = 0.015). Women demonstrated higher levels of anxiety than men in both groups. No between-group differences were discerned in CCTA process time.

CONCLUSION

Access to 360°VCE can reduce patients' pre-CCTA anxiety levels.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The presented results can be used to improve patient counselling and care, reduce anxiety among patients undergoing CCTA, and optimise the CCTA examination procedure.

Scanxiety: a scoping review about scan-associated anxiety

OBJECTIVES

To identify available literature on prevalence, severity and contributing factors of scan-associated anxiety ('scanxiety') and interventions to reduce it.

DESIGN

Systematic scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, EBSCO CINAHL and PubMed up to July 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies recruited people having cancer-related non-invasive scans (including screening) and contained a quantitative assessment of scanxiety.

DATA EXTRACTION

Demographics and scanxiety outcomes were recorded, and data were summarised by descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 26 693 citations, 57 studies were included across a range of scan types (mammogram: 26/57, 46%; positron-emission tomography: 14/57, 25%; CT: 14/57, 25%) and designs (observation: 47/57, 82%; intervention: 10/57, 18%). Eighty-one measurement tools were used to quantify prevalence and/or severity of scanxiety, including purpose-designed Likert scales (17/81, 21%); the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (14/81, 17%) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (9/81, 11%). Scanxiety prevalence ranged from 0% to 64% (above prespecified thresholds) or from 13% to 83% ('any' anxiety, if no threshold). Mean severity scores appeared low in almost all measures that quantitatively measured scanxiety (54/62, 87%), regardless of whether anxiety thresholds were prespecified. Moderate to severe scanxiety occurred in 4%-28% of people in studies using descriptive measures. Nine of 20 studies assessing scanxiety prescan and postscan reported significant postscan reduction in scanxiety. Lower education, smoking, higher levels of pain, higher perceived risk of cancer and diagnostic scans (vs screening scans) consistently correlated with higher scanxiety severity but not age, gender, ethnicity or marital status. Interventions included relaxation, distraction, education and psychological support. Six of 10 interventions showed a reduction in scanxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence and severity of scanxiety varied widely likely due to heterogeneous methods of measurement. A uniform approach to evaluating scanxiety will improve understanding of the phenomenon and help guide interventions.