Before medical tests are introduced into practice, they should be properly evaluated. Randomized trials and other comprehensive evaluations of tests and test strategies can best be designed based on an understanding of how tests can benefit or harm patients. Tests primarily affect patients’ health by guiding clinical decision making and downstream management, such as the decision to order more tests or to start, stop, or modify treatment. In this article, the authors demonstrate that tests can have additional effects on patient outcome, which may be cognitive, emotional, social, or behavioral. They present a framework to help researchers and policy makers consider the cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral effects of testing. These additional effects may be important themselves and may also influence the clinical outcomes of testing through different pathways. The authors provide examples from test evaluations in the literature to illustrate how these additional effects can be important in the evaluation of testing or indeed any health intervention.
Schünemann H., Oxman A., Brozek J., et al. Rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336:1106-10.
2.
Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PMVarious randomized designs can be used to evaluate medical tests. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62: 364-73.
3.
Lord SJ, Irwig L., Bossuyt PMM.Evaluating new tests: when can comparative evidence of test accuracy and other intermediate outcomes be used as an alternative to randomized controlled trials?Med Decis Making. In press.
4.
Lijmer JG, Leeflang MM, Bossuyt PMM.Staged evaluations of medical tests. Med Decis Making . In press.
5.
Viiala CH, Zimmerman M., Cullen DJ, Hoffman NEComplication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment . Intern Med J. 2003;33:355-9.
6.
Cloft HJ, Joseph GJ, Dion JERisk of cerebral angiography in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, cerebral aneurysm, and arteriovenous malformation: a meta-analysis. Stroke. 1999;30: 317-20.
7.
Luttjeboer F. , Harada T., Hughes E., Johnson N., Lilford R., Mol BWTubal flushing for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD003718.
8.
Leventhal H., Nerenz DR, Steel DJIllness representations and coping with health threats. In: Baum A, Singer JW , eds. Handbook of Psychology and Health. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1984. p 219-52.
9.
Shaw C., Abrams K., Marteau TMPsychological impact of predicting individuals’ risks of illness: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:1571-98.
10.
Cullen J., Schwartz MD, Lawrence WF, Selby JV, Mandelblatt JSShort-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:943-52.
11.
Maissi E., Marteau TM, Hankins M., Moss S., Legood R., Gray A.The psychological impact of human papillomavirus testing in women with borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cervical smear test results: 6-month follow-up. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:990-4.
12.
O’Kane MJ, Bunting B., Copeland M., Coates VEEfficacy of self monitoring of blood glucose in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (ESMON study): randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;336:1174-7.
13.
Marteau TM, Walker P., Giles J., Smail M.Anxieties in women undergoing colposcopy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol . 1990;97:859-61.
14.
Richardson PH, Doherty I., Wolfe CDA, et al. Evaluation of cognitive-behavioural counselling for the distress associated with an abnormal cervical smear result . Br J Health Psychol. 1996;1(pt 4):327-38.
15.
Khoshnood B. , De Vigan C., Goffinet F., Leroy V.Prenatal screening and diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis: a review of safety issues and psychological consequences for women who undergo screening. Prenat Diagn . 2007;27:395-403.
16.
Kukulu K., Buldukoglu K., Keser I., Simsek M., Mendilcioglu I., Luleci G.Psychological effects of amniocentesis on women and their spouses: importance of the testing period and genetic counseling. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;27:9-15.
17.
Hafslund B. , Nortvedt MWMammography screening from the perspective of quality of life: a review of the literature. Scand J Caring Sci. 2009 Jan 7. [Epub ahead of print]
18.
Petrie KJ, Muller JT, Schirmbeck F., et al. Effect of providing information about normal test results on patients’ reassurance: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;334:352.
19.
Waller J., McCaffery K., Kitchener H., Nazroo J., Wardle J.Women’s experiences of repeated HPV testing in the context of cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study. Psychooncology . 2007;16:196-204.
20.
Sutton S., Wardle J., Taylor T., et al. Predictors of attendance in the United Kingdom flexible sigmoidoscopy screening trial. J Med Screen. 2000;7:99-104.
21.
Wardle J., Sutton S., Williamson S., et al. Psychosocial influences on older adults’ interest in participating in bowel cancer screening. Prev Med. 2000;31:323-34.
22.
Sandberg T. , Conner M.A mere measurement effect for anticipated regret: impacts on cervical screening attendance. Br J Soc Psychol.2009;48(pt 2):221-36.
23.
Sandberg T. , Conner M.Anticipated regret as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Br J Soc Psychol. 2008;47(pt 4):589-606.
24.
Metcalfe KA , Narod SABreast cancer risk perception among women who have undergone prophylactic bilateral mastectomy. JNCI Cancer Spectrum. 2002;94:1564-9.
25.
Simpson EL, Stevenson MD, Rawdin A., Papaioannou D.Thrombophilia testing in people with venous thromboembolism: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess.2009;13:iii, ix-x, 1-91.
26.
Bank I., Scavenius MP, Buller HR, Middeldorp S.Social aspects of genetic testing for factor V Leiden mutation in healthy individuals and their importance for daily practice. Thromb Res. 2004;113:7-12.
27.
Biesecker BB , Boehnke M., Calzone K., et al. Genetic counseling for families with inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. JAMA . 1993;269:1970-4.
28.
Lynch HT, Lynch J., Conway T., Severin M.Psychological aspects of monitoring high risk women for breast cancer . Cancer. 1994;74(suppl):1184-92.
29.
Wagner TM, Moslinger R., Langbauer G., et al. Attitude towards prophylactic surgery and effects of genetic counselling in families with BRCA mutations. Austrian Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Group. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1249-53.
30.
Lerman C., Hughes C., Lemon SJ, et al. What you don’t know can hurt you: adverse psychologic effects in members of BRCA1-linked and BRCA2-linked families who decline genetic testing. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:1650-4.
31.
Reis C., Heisler M., Amowitz LL, et al. Discriminatory attitudes and practices by health workers toward patients with HIV/AIDS in Nigeria. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e246.
32.
Safren SA, Kumarasamy N., Hosseinipour M., et al. Perceptions about the acceptability of assessments of HIV medication adherence in Lilongwe, Malawi and Chennai, India. AIDS Behav . 2006;10:443-50
Lynch EL, Doherty RJ, Gaff CL, Macrae FA, Lindeman GJ‘‘Cancer in the family’’ and genetic testing: implications for life insurance. Med J Aust. 2003;179:480-3.
35.
Gooding HC, Organista K., Burack J., Biesecker BBGenetic susceptibility testing from a stress and coping perspective . Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:1880-90.
36.
Petrie KJ, Jago LA, Devcich DAThe role of illness perceptions in patients with medical conditions . Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2007;20:163-7.
37.
Kaptein AA, Hughes BM, Scharloo M., et al. Illness perceptions about asthma are determinants of outcome . J Asthma. 2008; 45:459-64.
38.
Kaptein AA, Scharloo M., Fischer MJ, et al. Illness perceptions and COPD: an emerging field for COPD patient management. J Asthma. 2008;45:625-9.
39.
Kash KM, Holland JC, Halper MS, Miller DGPsychological distress and surveillance behaviors of women with a family history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992 ;84:24-30.
40.
Lerman C., Hughes C., Croyle RT, et al. Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing. Prev Med. 2000;31:75-80.
41.
Sirovich BE , Welch HGThe frequency of Pap smear screening in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 ;19:243-50.
42.
McCaffery KJ , Waller J., Nazroo JN, Wardle J.Social and psychological impact of HPV testing in cervical screening: a qualitative study. Sex Transm Infect . 2006;82(2):69-74.
43.
Waller J., McCaffery K., Nazroo J., Wardle J.Making sense of information about HPV in cervical screening: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:265-70.
44.
Larsen IK, Grotmol T., Almendingen K., Hoff G.Impact of colorectal cancer screening on future lifestyle choices: a three-year randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5: 477-83.
45.
Miles A., Wardle J., McCaffery K., Williamson S., Atkin W.The effects of colorectal cancer screening on health attitudes and practices . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12:651-5.
46.
Wood DA, Kinmonth AL, Davies GA, Yarwood J., Thompson SG, Pyke SDM.Randomised controlled trial evaluating cardiovascular screening and intervention in general practice: principal results of British family heart study. Family Heart Study Group. BMJ. 1994 ;308:313-20.
47.
Siegel K., Schrimshaw E., Dean L.Symptom interpretation: Implications for delay in HIV testing and care among HIV-infected late middle-aged and older adults. AIDS Care . 1999;11: 525-35.
48.
Siegel K., Schrimshaw EW, Dean L.Symptom interpretation and medication adherence among late middle-age and older HIV-infected adults. J Health Psychol. 1999;4:247-57.
49.
Moyé LAMultiple Analyses in Clinical Trials. New York : Springer; 2003.
50.
Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG, Mol BWRandomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient . Lancet. 2000;356:1844-7.
51.
Montgomery AA, Fahey T.How do patients’ treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? Qual Health Care. 2001; 10(suppl 1):i39-43.
52.
Irwig L., Glasziou P.Informed consent for screening by community sampling. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:47-50.
53.
Camfield L. , Skevington SMOn subjective well-being and quality of life . J Health Psychol. 2008;13:764-75.
54.
The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1403-9.
55.
The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med . 1998;46:1569-85.
