Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with mild dyskaryosis are currently managed by six-month cytological surveillance. While there is good evidence that women suffer psychological distress on receipt of an abnormal test, and that this is amenable to educational intervention, it remains uncertain whether this distress is prolonged and, if so, how it should best be managed. AIM: To investigate whether a structured educational intervention containing a risk communication package impacts upon psychological sequelae associated with this surveillance. METHOD: A pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial during 14 months in 1995 and 1996, based in general practices in Avon and South Glamorgan, that compared the intervention with standard care. Follow-up was by postal questionnaire at six weeks and four months after the screening laboratory had reported the test result. The intervention was an invitation to attend the general practice to consult with a practice nurse trained to deliver the package. The main outcome measures were Spielberger state-anxiety, SF-36 Mental Health dimension, four condition-specific questions regarding concerns about gynaecological health and timing of the repeat smear test, and attendance for the repeat test. RESULTS: Of 514 eligible women, 270 were recruited, of whom 240 returned the six-week questionnaire and 181 returned the four-month questionnaire. On all but one outcome measure, the differences between the groups were not statistically significant. At six-week follow-up, the proportion who preferred the repeat test to be sooner than six months was statistically significantly higher among controls (74% versus 53%; 95% CI = 9% to 33%). At the four-month follow-up, the difference was 7% (95% CI = -7% to 21%). CONCLUSION: There appear to be high levels of anxiety during surveillance for mild dyskaryosis that were not reduced by the intervention. Given that a personally delivered educational intervention designed to reduce anxiety could be viewed as the best available practice, it is of concern that women in the intervention group demonstrated sustained anxiety over a four-month period. The research agenda therefore seems to return to the fundamental question of whether surveillance should be the management of choice.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (54.0 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Brazier J. E., Harper R., Jones N. M., O'Cathain A., Thomas K. J., Usherwood T., Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992 Jul 18;305(6846):160–164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Campion M. J., Brown J. R., McCance D. J., Atia W., Edwards R., Cuzick J., Singer A. Psychosexual trauma of an abnormal cervical smear. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988 Feb;95(2):175–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1988.tb06848.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Donner A., Birkett N., Buck C. Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1981 Dec;114(6):906–914. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Donner A., Klar N. Methods for comparing event rates in intervention studies when the unit of allocation is a cluster. Am J Epidemiol. 1994 Aug 1;140(3):279–301. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Flannelly G., Anderson D., Kitchener H. C., Mann E. M., Campbell M., Fisher P., Walker F., Templeton A. A. Management of women with mild and moderate cervical dyskaryosis. BMJ. 1994 May 28;308(6941):1399–1403. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6941.1399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Horowitz M., Wilner N., Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979 May;41(3):209–218. doi: 10.1097/00006842-197905000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jenkinson C., Coulter A., Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1437–1440. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johnson N., Sutton J., Thornton J. G., Lilford R. J., Johnson V. A., Peel K. R. Decision analysis for best management of mildly dyskaryotic smear. Lancet. 1993 Jul 10;342(8863):91–96. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91290-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jones M. H., Singer A., Jenkins D. The mildly abnormal cervical smear: patient anxiety and choice of management. J R Soc Med. 1996 May;89(5):257–260. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lerman C., Miller S. M., Scarborough R., Hanjani P., Nolte S., Smith D. Adverse psychologic consequences of positive cytologic cervical screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Sep;165(3):658–662. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(91)90304-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marteau T. M., Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992 Sep;31(Pt 3):301–306. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Somerset M., Baxter K., Wilkinson C., Peters T. J. Mildly dyskaryotic smear results: does it matter what women know? Fam Pract. 1998 Dec;15(6):537–542. doi: 10.1093/fampra/15.6.537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wilkinson C. E., Peters T. J., Stott N. C., Harvey I. M. Prospective evaluation of a risk scoring system for cervical neoplasia in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Aug;44(385):341–344. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wilkinson C., Jones J. M., McBride J. Anxiety caused by abnormal result of cervical smear test: a controlled trial. BMJ. 1990 Feb 17;300(6722):440–440. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6722.440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]