| Title |
Psychological impact of positive cervical cancer screening results among Japanese women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Oncology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10147-016-1023-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yukari Isaka, Haruhiko Inada, Yuri Hiranuma, Masao Ichikawa |
| Abstract |
While cervical cancer screening is useful for detecting and then treating the disease at an early stage, most women with screen-positive results are free from cervical cancer but nevertheless subject to the unnecessary worry entailed in receiving such results. The purpose of this study was to examine whether receiving a screen-positive result was actually related to psychological distress among Japanese women who underwent cervical cancer screening. We conducted a questionnaire survey at health facilities in a semiurban city of Ibaraki prefecture, involving 1744 women who underwent cervical cancer screening and 72 who received screen-positive results and then underwent further testing. We used the K6 scale to assess their psychological distress (K6 score ≥5) and performed multiple logistic regression analyses to estimate the relative effect of receiving screen-positive results on psychological distress. Psychological distress was more prevalent among women with screen-positive results (OR 2.22; 95 % CI 1.32-3.74), while it was also related to history of mental health consultation (OR 2.26; 95 % CI 1.69-3.01) and marital status (OR 1.32; 95 % CI 1.02-1.70). Receiving a positive cervical cancer screening result was associated with psychological distress. To alleviate this psychological impact, the current form of communicating the screening results should be reconsidered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 22% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,466,238
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Oncology
#492
of 914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,067
of 365,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Oncology
#10
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 914 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.