Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Dec 29:13:189-195.
doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.12.016. eCollection 2019 Mar.

Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences

Affiliations
Review

Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences

Sian Williamson et al. Prev Med Rep. .

Abstract

Attending and receiving a result from screening can be an anxious process. Using an appropriate method to deliver screening results could improve communication and reduce negative outcomes for screening attendees. Screening programmes are increasingly communicating results by letter or telephone rather than in-person. We investigated the impact of communication methods on attendees. We systematically reviewed the literature on the communication methods used to deliver results in cancer screening programmes for women, focusing on screening attendee anxiety, understanding of results and preferences for results communication. We included qualitative and quantitative research. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Embase. Results were analysed using framework synthesis. 10,558 papers were identified with seven studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Several key ideas emerged from the synthesis including speed, accuracy of results, visual support, ability to ask questions, privacy of results location and managing expectations. Verbal communication methods (telephone and in-person) were preferred and facilitated greater understanding than written methods, although there was considerable variability in attendee preferences. Findings for anxiety were mixed, with no clear consensus on which method of communication might minimise attendee anxiety. The low number of identified studies and generally low quality evidence suggest we do not know the most appropriate communication methods in the delivery of cancer screening results. More research is needed to directly compare methods of results communication, focusing on what impact each method may have on screening attendees.

Keywords: Communication; Mass screening; Mixed methods; NHSBSP, National Health Service Breast Screening Programme; Psychology; Review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of paper selection.

References

    1. Allen J.D., Shelton R.C., Harden E., Goldman R.E. Follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms among low-income ethnically diverse women: findings from a qualitative study. Patient Educ. Couns. 2008;72(2):283–292. - PubMed
    1. Armfield N.R., Bradford M., Bradford N.K. The clinical use of Skype—for which patients, with which problems and in which settings? A snapshot review of the literature. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2015;84(10):737–742. - PubMed
    1. Atkins S., Lewin S., Smith H., Engel M., Fretheim A., Volmink J. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2008;8(1):21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barnett-Page E., Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2009;9(1):59. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bazeley P. Analysing qualitative data: more than ‘identifying themes’. Malaysian J. Qual. Res. 2009;2(2):6–22.

LinkOut - more resources