Outcomes of an insurance company-sponsored multichannel chemistry screening initiative

被引:0
|
作者
Mold, JW [1 ]
Aspy, CB [1 ]
Lawler, FH [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oklahoma, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Family & Prevent Med, Oklahoma City, OK 73104 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PRACTICE | 1998年 / 47卷 / 02期
关键词
clinical chemistry; outcome assessment; laboratory; data analysis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND. The use of serum chemistry panels as screening tests has been studied in a variety of clinical and nonclinical settings. None of the studies, however, has attempted to carefully examine any potential harm done to participants, and none has measured the impact on health-related quality of life. METHODS. Consenting participants in an insurance company-sponsored screening initiative completed a questionnaire before and 6 months after having blood drawn for a 25-item chemistry panel and a lipid profile; for men older than 50, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test was also done. The prescreening questionnaire included demographic and health information. The postscreening questionnaire included questions about specific outcomes. Included in both questionnaires were single-item measures of self-rated health and self-rated worry about health, and the 17-item Duke Health Profile (DUKE), a measure of health-related quality of life. Various outcomes were examined, including the numbers of new diagnoses, numbers and types of new treatment recommendations, change in self-reported health and worry, and change in DUKE subscale scores. Participants who were potentially helped and those who were potentially harmed by the serum chemistry panels screening program were identified and further characterized. RESULTS. Of the 2249 subjects who satisfactorily completed both questionnaires, 2012 (89%) had at least one abnormal test result, but only 985 of these (49%) remembered having discussed their lest results with a physician. A total of 342 individuals received new treatment advice. However, 29 (10%) of them indicated that they would be "somewhat unlikely" to "very unlikely" to follow it. Following the intervention questionnaire, there were statistically significant average decrements in the General Health, Physical Health, and Pain subscales of the DUKE for participants with abnormal results. Self-rated health status did not change, but level of worry about health increased significantly. At least 250 (11%) subjects were potentially helped by the screening initiative, but at least 574 (26%) were potentially harmed by it. CONCLUSIONS. The use of serum chemistry panels as screening tests in nonclinical settings should probably be discouraged, since health-related quality of life is not improved and the intervention may harm more individuals than it benefits.
引用
收藏
页码:110 / 117
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [32] Company-sponsored egg freezing: an offer you can't refuse?
    Petersen, Thomas Sobirk
    Hansen, Rune
    BIOETHICS, 2022, 36 (01) : 42 - 48
  • [33] Important Distinctions Concerning Pharmaceutical Company-Sponsored Meals and Prescribing Patterns Reply
    DeJong, Colette
    Tseng, Chien-Wen
    Dudley, R. Adams
    JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 176 (12) : 1881 - 1881
  • [34] Beliefs of US KOLs regarding professionalism in pharmaceutical company-sponsored medical publications
    Joish, Sahana
    Rubio, Jennifer
    Rear, David
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2009, 25 : S11 - S11
  • [35] The Frequency of Company-Sponsored Alcohol Brand-Related Sites on Facebook™-2012
    Nhean, Siphannay
    Nyborn, Justin
    Hinchey, Danielle
    Valerio, Heather
    Kinzel, Kathryn
    Siegel, Michael
    Jernigan, David H.
    SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE, 2014, 49 (07) : 779 - 782
  • [36] Cost-Effective Company Response Policy for Product Co-Creation in Company-Sponsored Online Community
    Hu, Jiamin
    Yang, Lu-Xing
    Yang, Xiaofan
    Huang, Kaifan
    Li, Gang
    Xiang, Yong
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN CYBERNETICS-SYSTEMS, 2024, 54 (07): : 4494 - 4506
  • [37] Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3
    Battisti, Wendy P.
    Wager, Elizabeth
    Baltzer, Lise
    Bridges, Dan
    Cairns, Angela
    Carswell, Christopher I.
    Citrome, Leslie
    Gurr, James A.
    Mooney, LaVerne A.
    Moore, B. Jane
    Pena, Teresa
    Sanes-Miller, Carol H.
    Veitch, Keith
    Woolley, Karen L.
    Yarker, Yvonne E.
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2015, 163 (06) : 461 - +
  • [38] Pharmaceutical company-sponsored patient assistance programs: Looking a gift horse in the mouth.
    Eberwein, DM
    Kimberly, JR
    Wofford, JL
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2000, 15 : 226 - 227
  • [39] A pilot study to ascertain perceptions of impact of company-sponsored publications across multiple stakeholders
    Piano, Claudia
    Pellegrino, Michael
    Casparro, Donna
    Della Penna, Kimberly
    Rosenblum, Charles
    Jameson, Pamela
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2015, 31 : S15 - S15
  • [40] Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines for Company-Sponsored Biomedical Research: 2022 Update
    DeTora, Lisa M.
    Toroser, Dikran
    Sykes, Angela
    Vanderlinden, Christine
    Plunkett, Fiona J.
    Lane, Trevor
    Hanekamp, Eline
    Dormer, Laura
    DiBiasi, Faith
    Bridges, Dan
    Baltzer, Lise
    Citrome, Leslie
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2022, 175 (09) : 1298 - +