Psychological distress and quality of life following provision of vascular imaging results of the coronary and carotid arteries to asymptomatic adults: a scoping review protocol

Reindolf Anokye; Ben Jackson; James Dimmock; Joanne M. Dickson; Lauren C. Blekkenhorst; Jonathan M. Hodgson; Joshua R. Lewis; Mandy Stanley

doi:10.12688/f1000research.27432.3

Home Browse Psychological distress and quality of life following provision of...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

Psychological distress and quality of life following provision of vascular imaging results of the coronary and carotid arteries to asymptomatic adults: a scoping review protocol

[version 3; peer review: 2 approved]

Previously titled: Mental distress and quality of life following provision of vascular imaging results of the coronary and carotid arteries to asymptomatic adults: a scoping review protocol

Reindolf Anokye ¹, Ben Jackson^2,3, James Dimmock⁴, [...] Joanne M. Dickson^5,6, Lauren C. Blekkenhorst^1,7, Jonathan M. Hodgson^1,7, Joshua R. Lewis^1,7,8^*, Mandy Stanley¹^*

Reindolf Anokye ¹, Ben Jackson^2,3, [...] James Dimmock⁴, Joanne M. Dickson^5,6, Lauren C. Blekkenhorst^1,7, Jonathan M. Hodgson^1,7, Joshua R. Lewis^1,7,8^*, Mandy Stanley¹^*

^* Equal contributors

PUBLISHED 09 Nov 2021

Author details Author details

¹ School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, 6027, Australia
² School of Human Sciences (Exercise and Sport Science), University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, 6009, Australia
³ Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
⁴ Department of Psychology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, 4811, Australia
⁵ School of Arts and Humanities (Psychology Discipline), Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, 6027, Australia
⁶ Department of Psychological Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZX, UK
⁷ Medical School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, 6009, Australia
⁸ School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, Australia

Reindolf Anokye
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ben Jackson
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

James Dimmock
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Joanne M. Dickson
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Lauren C. Blekkenhorst
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Jonathan M. Hodgson
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Joshua R. Lewis
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Mandy Stanley
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Non-invasive screening for atherosclerosis or asymptomatic cardiovascular disease of the coronary and carotid arteries is commonly undertaken, and research has been focussed on how results from these screenings lead to behaviour change. However, no review has focused on the effects of these results on psychological distress and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This protocol will outline how a scoping review will be conducted to map all available evidence on psychological distress and/or HRQoL outcomes following the provision of vascular imaging results of the coronary and carotid arteries.
Methods: Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework subsequently enhanced by Levac et al. (2010) and Peters et al (2015, 2017) will guide the scoping review. Databases such as MEDLINE (Clarivate), APA PsychINFO, EMBASE, Social Work Abstracts, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) will be searched using MeSH terms such as "Coronary stenosis", "Carotid Stenosis", "Psychological Distress" and "Quality of Life" and related terms. Two investigators will screen title and abstract and all articles meeting inclusion criteria will be extracted. Data on authors, publication year, country of origin, aims/purpose, methodology, intervention, outcome measures as well as key findings that relate to the scoping review questions will be extracted for each included study. The findings will be presented using tables and thematic narrative synthesis. The scoping review will not produce a pooled estimate of the impact of vascular imaging results on psychological distress and HRQoL but will present information from the included studies related to psychological distress and HRQoL.
Conclusion: The review will highlight and address gaps in knowledge and provide direction for future investigations.

Keywords

Psychological distress, Quality of life, Non-invasive vascular imaging, Asymptomatic adults, Scoping review

Corresponding author: Reindolf Anokye

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: JRL is supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship [102817]. JMH is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) Senior Research Fellowship [APP1116937]. RA is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (International). The salary of LCB is supported by an NHMRC of Australia Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant [1172987] and a National Heart Foundation of Australia Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship [102498].
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2021 Anokye R et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Anokye R, Jackson B, Dimmock J et al. Psychological distress and quality of life following provision of vascular imaging results of the coronary and carotid arteries to asymptomatic adults: a scoping review protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 9:1376 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27432.3) First published: 26 Nov 2020, 9:1376 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27432.1) Latest published: 09 Nov 2021, 9:1376 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27432.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

There will be no critical appraisal and risk of bias assessment for this review and therefore the quality appraisal section in the protocol has been removed.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Md Mahbub Hossain, Abida Sultana and Samia Tasnim
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Aaron Conway

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) refers to diseases of the blood vessels, and in particular the heart, brain and peripheral vasculature¹. CVDs due to atherosclerosis include cerebrovascular events such as stroke, ischaemic heart disease events such as heart attacks, and peripheral arterial diseases causing peripheral claudication¹. CVD is the leading cause of death and disability globally^1,2 with an estimated 17.9 million people dying from CVDs in 2016, representing 31% of all global deaths. Of these CVD-related deaths, 85% were due to heart attack and stroke or their sequelae². By 2030, it is estimated that more than 22.2 million people will die annually from CVDs³.

Atherosclerosis before clinical events, or “asymptomatic CVD”, can be easily visualised using a range of imaging methods, with the most common being computed tomography of the coronary arteries to calculate coronary artery calcification (CAC) or carotid ultrasound to identify carotid plaques and assess intimal medial thickness⁴. Imaging of the arteries to identify asymptomatic CVD is becoming commonplace in medical practice⁵, and provides asymptomatic individuals with a visible and tangible illustration of an otherwise hidden disease process, even before distinctive symptoms appear⁶. Such information can improve an individual’s knowledge of the disease which may enable them to increase control over, and improve their health⁷. Increased knowledge may also lead to personal and social benefits, such as enabling effective community action and contributing to developing one's social capital^8,9. However, diagnostic information or results related to a disease (depending on how the situation is evaluated) may also affect an individual’s sense of well-being¹⁰ or lead to psychological distress^6,11,12. For example, previous studies have reported that women who undergo mammography screening may be susceptible to psychological distress following the provision of results^13–21.

Psychological distress, often referred to as mental distress, refers to the unique discomforting emotional state an individual experiences in response to a particular demand or stressor that causes temporary or permanent harm to them²². Psychological distress often manifests through attributes including: (a) discomfort (e.g., anguish, misery, suffering); (b) perceived inability to effectively cope (e.g., inability to solve problems); (c) communication of discomfort (e.g. facial expressions); (d) loss of independence and confidence (e.g. dependency, decreased self-esteem);and/or (e) changes in emotional status (e.g. change from stable emotional state to one of depression, self-depreciation, amotivation, dysregulated motivation or maladaptive motivation,aggressiveness, irritability, nervousness, and anxiety)^23–33. Quality of Life (QOL) encompasses a person’s psychological state, appraisals of physical health, personal beliefs as well as social relationships³⁴. It is often measured in research using physical and mental health summary scores³⁵. This review focuses on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which refers to a multidimensional construct encompassing appraisals of physical and emotional health, wellness or illness^36–38. HRQoL is generally considered as the most suitable variant of quality of life when one is investigating medical conditions or disease related outcomes³⁹. HRQoL and psychological distress have been extensively studied in health research^40–46. Reported impaired HRQoL (e.g., illness , role limitations due to physical or emotional/psychological problems), improved HRQoL (e.g., wellness, improved physical or mental health) and psychological distress (e.g., anxiety, depression, worry) following screening are the outcomes of interest for this scoping review. Psychological outcomes will be reported under HRQoL domain in this scoping review if they were categorised as QoL/HRQoL in the included studies (e.g., measured using validated QoL/HRQoL instrument and reported as impaired/improved QoL/HRQoL). Psychological outcomes will also be reported under psychological distress domain in this scoping review if they were measured and reported as a single psychosocial variable (e.g., depression, self-esteem, anxiety).

The scoping review was informed by Witte’s⁴⁷ extended parallel process model (EPPM) and cognitive stress appraisal theory⁴⁸. Based on the constructs of the EPPM⁴⁷, the provision of information—in particular, negative information—about a person’s coronary artery calcium and carotid plaque (and the potential implications of this condition) is likely to stimulate subjective ‘threat’ appraisals (i.e., perceived susceptibility to, and severity of, CVD)⁴⁹. Depending on interactions between that threat appraisal and individuals’ efficacy appraisals, individuals may react to screening information by (a) adopting danger control responses (including attitudes, beliefs, behavioural intentions, and/or behaviours) that align with message recommendations, or (b) adopting fear control processes (such as denial, reactance, and avoidance) intended to reduce fear rather than take protective action⁵⁰. Behavioural intentions and/or behaviours such as increasing physical activity, health responsibility, good nutrition, and stress management could impact health outcomes⁵¹. Behavioural intentions and/or behaviours are also associated with lifestyle related disease burden such as CVD⁵² which could undermine HRQoL⁵³. Cognitive stress appraisal theory⁴⁸ also proposes that individuals primarily evaluate circumstances/situations as ‘challenging’ (i.e., threat that can be overcome or met) or ‘threatening’ (i.e., anticipated loss/harm)⁴⁸. Positive cognitive stress appraisal (i.e. appraising a situation as a challenge to be resolved and setting goals to achieve that) may contribute to prevention of depression and improved HRQoL⁵⁴. Negative appraisals of stress—viewing an issue such as detected atherosclerotic plaque in the arteries as a threat and believing that resolving it is beyond one’s abilities—may, however, lead to psychological distress^55–57.

Based on the EPPM and cognitive stress appraisal frameworks, we therefore hypothesized that; (a) population screening to detect atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary or carotid arteries can influence HRQoL, and (b) population screening to detect atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary or carotid arteries can cause psychological distress. To date, however, the available evidence that may support (or refute) these hypotheses has not been scrutinised or reported in any coherent manner. Hence, there is a need for a scoping review to synthesize the state of scientific literature on this subject.

Scoping reviews aim to map key concepts, main sources and types of evidence available in a research area and can be undertaken where an area is complex or has not been comprehensively reviewed before⁵⁸. Previous reviews reported very little evidence relating to HRQoL or psychological distress following provision of vascular imaging results to asymptomatic adults^7,59–62. It is important, therefore, to collate evidence relating to the findings available in this field, how studies in this field have been conducted, the key characteristics of studies, and important knowledge gaps. As such, this scoping review will comprehensively map the evidence on psychological distress and HRQoL outcomes following provision of vascular imaging results of the coronary or carotid arteries to asymptomatic adults. We will also report other details of included studies that we deem important in this scoping review (e.g., the information provided during counselling and whether the counselling could reduce distress, or any information included in the results that shaped the nature of the response).

Study rationale and guiding question

There is great interest (and value) in providing people with vascular imaging results of the coronary and carotid arteries to prompt healthful behaviour change and better management of CVD^7,60. However, the provision of the imaging results may produce markedly different emotions—and as a result, downstream behaviours—depending upon the way in which they are received and appraised. Also, the uncertainty about a possible future threat (due to coronary artery calcium and carotid plaque) may cause anxiety⁶³. There is theoretical justification to anticipate that information aimed at prompting healthful behaviour change and better management of CVD may stimulate negative psychosocial outcomes or psychological distress such as anxiety or depression impairing HRQoL. Accordingly, it is important to identify which research questions have and have not been addressed in this area. Also, by highlighting the extent of findings on distress and/or HRQoL, a scoping review could support the development of strategies designed to mitigate or prevent distress during and following such screening exercises.

The aim of this review is to map all available evidence on psychological distress and HRQoL outcomes among participants who were screened for atherosclerosis by non-invasive methods and provided with their own coronary or carotid artery vascular imaging results. This scoping review will address this research question:

1. What is the state of scientific literature on psychological distress and HRQoL related to the provision of vascular imaging results of the coronary and carotid arteries, and what are the gaps in that literature?

Table 1 further clarifies the core elements of the questions guiding the conduct of this scoping review.

Table 1. An overview of core elements of scoping review questions.

HRQoL, health-related quality of life.

CORE ELEMENTS	EXPLANATION
SCOPE OF THE REVIEW	Global
SETTING	Community and/or clinical settings
POPULATION	Adult participants who have been screened for coronary artery calcium/calcification or carotid plaque/ stenosis
INTERVENTION	Screening for atherosclerosis in the coronary or carotid arteries using non-invasive imaging techniques
COMPARISON	1. Reported psychological distress and/or HRQoL in sub-groups provided with results of detected atherosclerotic plaque after screening and those without 2. Reported psychological distress and/or HRQoL in sub-groups within different risk categories (e.g. no risk/normal, low risk, mild risk, moderate risk and high risk groups) 3. Reported psychological distress and/or HRQoL in sub-groups with knowledge of test results and those without 4. Reported psychological distress and/or HRQoL in sub-groups screened and provided results and non- screening group 5. Reported psychological distress and/or HRQoL in populations before and after provision of results
EVALUATION	Reported changes/no changes or differences/no differences in psychological distress and/or HRQoL following the provision of vascular imaging results of an individual’s carotid or coronary arteries; how studies were conducted and important knowledge gaps.

Protocol

Methods

Study design. The framework initially developed by Arksey and O’Malley⁶⁴ and subsequently enhanced by Levac et al.⁶⁵ and Peters et al.^66–68 will be used for this scoping review. The framework involves stages such as: (1) identifying, clarifying, defining and linking the purpose of the study and the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies, balancing comprehensiveness and breadth with feasibility; (3) developing and aligning inclusion criteria with study questions and objectives; (4) using an iterative approach to study selection and data extraction; (5) using a planned approach to searching evidence, study selection, extracting data, and evidence presentation; (6) incorporating qualitative thematic analysis and numerical summary to collating, summarizing and reporting the results; and (7) Summarizing the evidence in relation to the aims of the review, making conclusions and identifying any implications for practice, policy or research. The reporting of this scoping review will also be guided by the PRISMA extension for scoping review reporting checklist⁶⁹.

Identifying relevant studies

Information sources and search strategy. The main purpose of a scoping review is to comprehensively identify primary studies (published and unpublished) and reviews suitable for answering the review questions. To achieve this, databases such as MEDLINE (Clarivate), APA PsychINFO, EMBASE, Social Work Abstracts, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), will be searched for articles of relevance. Further manual searching of reference lists in identified articles will be undertaken to include other studies of relevance. We will also search relevant grey literature databases such as Open Grey and Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD) to identify relevant studies.

Approach to developing search strategy. Different sources (e.g. MeSH headings and thesaurus) will be used to identify terms and synonyms to comprehensively cover the research questions as much as possible^70–73. The proposed search strategy was developed in consultation with an academic librarian (Table 2) for MEDLINE using MeSH terms such as "Coronary stenosis", "Carotid Stenosis", "Psychological Distress" and "Quality of Life". We also used Boolean operators “AND” to narrow search results to include only relevant results containing required keywords and “OR” to expand search results and combine synonyms. Other keywords such as behaviour, lifestyle, motivation, risk perception, medication adherence and smoking cessation were included to capture all relevant studies as mental health and HRQoL outcomes are unlikely to be primary or secondary outcomes and thus reported in the title or abstract. This search strategy will be modified for use in other databases. Due to the exploratory nature of scoping reviews and the need to ensure a comprehensive search of relevant literature, an iterative approach to search strategies will be employed⁶⁴. This implies that the search strategy will be updated as we discover new terms as we work through the review.

Table 2. Proposed search strategy.

MeSH, Medical Subject Headings; CAC, Coronary Artery Calcium.

"coronary stenosis"[MeSH Terms] OR Coronary Stenosis [Text Word] OR Coronary artery stenosis OR "Carotid Stenosis"[MeSH]
OR Carotid plaques OR Carotid ultrasound OR Coronary artery calc* OR Coronary calc* OR CAC score* OR Coronary artery
calcium score OR Calcium score

AND

Mental* OR "Psychological Distress"[MeSH] OR Psych* OR "Quality of Life"[MeSH] OR "Anxiety"[MeSH] OR Anx* OR
"Depression"[MeSH] OR Dep* OR mood OR Worr* OR alarm OR Lifestyle change OR Behaviour change OR Behaviour OR
Lifestyle OR Motivation OR Risk perception OR Risk perception* OR Medication adherence OR smoking cessation

These terms will be searched as keywords in the title and abstract headings and no date limits will be applied. Search results will be downloaded, imported and saved as Microsoft Word and PDF documents. Database outputs will be compared to check for the existence of any duplicates.

Study selection

Databases and records will be screened using the eligibility criteria (see below) and studies not meeting the criteria will be excluded. The process for identification, screening, eligibility and studies to be included is displayed in Figure 1. The process of searching and selection will be reported in the main review using a PRISMA flowchart⁷⁴.

Figure 1. Selection process chart.

The screening will begin with title and abstract screening by two investigators (RA and JRL) who will independently screen the titles and abstracts for all retrieved records for inclusion and to agree on exclusions. This process will be piloted using a sample of abstracts to ensure that this approach will be efficient enough to capture all relevant articles. Any articles that meet the inclusion criteria or that cannot be excluded will be retained for full text review. For the second stage, two investigators (RA and JRL) will each independently screen the full text of articles to determine if they meet the inclusion criteria and conflicts will be resolved by an independent reviewer (LCB) and data from included studies will be extracted.

Inclusion criteria

The following inclusion criteria will apply:

a) Study characteristics

Studies must be of adults who are 18 years and over and asymptomatic (not screened due to clinical symptoms such as chest pain or angina) and without pre-existing CVD (e.g., stroke, myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease or transient ischemic attack). Studies may report follow-up assessment and outcomes such as psychological distress and/or HRQoL after participants received information related to their own coronary artery calcification or carotid stenosis/plaque.

b) Study types

Study types that will be included for this scoping review are empirical studies of any type. No year of publication and language restrictions will be applied.

Concepts

i) Imaging results

Information regarding the state of arteries, extent of stenosis, extent of coronary artery calcification, or carotid/atherosclerotic plaques, coronary calcium score, arterial wall irregularities or obstructive artery walls conveyed to study participants.

ii) Psychological distress and HRQoL

An article may report psychological distress (e.g., anxiety, depression, impulsivity, worry, psychoticism, impulsivity, aggression, obsession-compulsion, or interpersonal sensitivity) and/or QoL/HRQoL (i.e., an individual’s self-perceived health status) as an outcome or include QoL/HRQoL measure using a standard instrument to be included in this review.

c) Context

This scoping review will include studies conducted in any geographical location among any racial/ethnic group and gender. Studies will be included irrespective of their settings.

Exclusion criteria

a) Study types, participants, and imaging methods

Studies in symptomatic patients undergoing invasive imaging for diagnostic purposes will be excluded. Other studies that will be excluded are studies providing imaging results of other vascular diseases/conditions such as Aneurysm or Endoleak; Angiodysplasia; Angioedema; Angiomatosis (Bacillary Angiomatosis, Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome, Sturge-Weber Syndrome, von Hippel-Lindau Disease); Arteriovenous Malformations; Capillary Leak Syndrome; Ischemic Colitis; Compartment Syndromes; Diabetic Angiopathies; Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome; Hemorrhoids; Hemostatic Disorders; Hyperemia; Hepatic Veno-Occlusive Disease; Hypotension; Peliosis Hepatis; Ischemic Optic Neuropathy; Pulmonary Veno-Occlusive Disease; Scimitar Syndrome; Retinal Vein Occlusion;Pulmonary Vein Stenosis; Splenic Infarction; Superior Vena Cava Syndrome; Telangiectasis; Varicocele; Thoracic Outlet Syndrome; Varicose Veins; Vascular Fistula; Vascular Neoplasms; Vascular System Injuries; Vasculitis as well as Vasoplegia and Venous Insufficiency.

b) Outcomes

Studies without outcomes considered as psychological distress and/or QoL/HRQoL will be excluded. We will also exclude studies where psychological distress/psychiatric and/or QoL/HRQoL assessments were performed only before vascular imaging procedure and not after provision of imaging results.

Charting the data

A draft data extraction chart will be developed and piloted with a selection of identified studies. The diagrammatic or tabular form of presentation or charting will be used for this study. The potential chart categories may consist of authors information (names, year of publication, study location), participant characteristics (age, gender), research design, methods, instruments/techniques/clinical assessments used to gather data on coronary artery calcification, carotid plaque/stenosis, psychological distress, HRQoL and aims/purpose of the extracted studies (Table 3). We will also extract data on how vascular imaging results were provided and whether there was additional counselling or support mechanisms.

Table 3. Summary of data extraction items.

HRQoL, health-related quality of life

RECORD DETAILS	Last name of first author, publication year, journal
STUDY	Study purpose
SETTING	Study location
POPULATION	Age of participants, gender of participants, sample
INTERVENTION	Imaging technique used, results provision details, follow-up period after baseline screening, psychological distress and HRQoL outcome assessment instruments, counselling/additional support for study participants
STUDY DESIGN/ TYPE	As reported by authors or as defined by review team
OUTCOMES	Key psychological distress and/or HRQoL outcomes reported by authors

EndNote X9 will be used as a reference management tool and to avoid duplications. Microsoft Excel and Word will be used to manage data within the review team.

Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

This review will employ thematic and numeric approaches to summarise studies. A thematic approach will be used to summarise the main and sub-themes that will emerge after the scoping exercise. A numeric approach will also be used to summarise results of the scoping review by presenting the quantity of each emerging concept (e.g., worry was used interchangeably with anxiety (n=2) or most of the studies (n=25) measured depression using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (C-ESD) instrument). The scoping review will not produce a pooled estimate of the impact of vascular imaging results on psychological distress and/or HRQoL as we aim to preliminary assess the potential size, scope and gaps in available literature.

Results on the state of scientific literature will be reported and the gaps in the literature will be identified. There will be further discussion on the implications of the results for practice and future research.

Study findings and dissemination

The findings from this review will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals to be considered for publication and may be presented at scientific conferences. Also, we aim to share our results with key stakeholders to influence policy and practice.

Study status

Start date of search: August 2020; anticipated date of completing review: July, 2021

Current study status:

Preliminary searches: Yes

Piloting search strategy: Yes

Pilot screening of search results: Yes

Study selection process piloting: Yes

Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria: Started

Data extraction: Started

Data analysis and interpretation: Started

Conclusion

The purpose of this protocol is to describe the methodological considerations that will guide the completion of a scoping review that will summarise the extent, range and nature of studies on psychological distress and/or HRQoL outcomes reported among asymptomatic adults following the provision of vascular imaging results. This comprehensive review will help advance knowledge about potential negative effects of screening for asymptomatic CVD to elicit healthful behaviour changes. It could also possibly enable the development of strategies to prevent distress. The results of this review will help advance knowledge in this field and will be useful for future medical practice when providing vascular imaging results to patients, cardiovascular research, and future clinical trials providing vascular imaging results to participants. This scoping review will be limited to studies reporting coronary or carotid artery plaque screening only as these are the commonly used structural vascular imaging modalities for large screening initiatives of asymptomatic individuals.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

There will be no formal ethical application and ethical review as no primary data will be collected.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Mendis S, Puska P, Norrving B, et al.: Global atlas on cardiovascular disease prevention and control. World Health Organization; 2011. Reference Source
2. World Health Organization: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs): fact sheet 2017. Diambil dari: 2017. Reference Source
3. World Health Organization: Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Geneva: WHO; 2011. World Health Organization. 2016. Reference Source
4. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al.: 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(25 Pt B): 2935–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Buxton DB, Antman M, Danthi N, et al.: Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group on the translation of cardiovascular molecular imaging. Circulation. 2011; 123(19): 2157–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Devcich DA, Ellis CJ, Waltham N, et al.: Seeing what's happening on the inside: patients' views of the value of diagnostic cardiac computed tomography angiography. Br J Health Psychol. 2014; 19(4): 810–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Mamudu HM, Paul TK, Veeranki SP, et al.: The effects of coronary artery calcium screening on behavioral modification, risk perception, and medication adherence among asymptomatic adults: a systematic review. Atherosclerosis. 2014; 236(2): 338–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Nutbeam D: Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International. 2000; 15(3): 259–67. Publisher Full Text
9. World Health Organization: Health Promotion Track 2: health literacy and health behaviour. 7th Global Conference on Health Promotion: track themes. Accessed on; 2015. Reference Source
10. Mushlin AI, Mooney C, Grow V, et al.: The value of diagnostic information to patients with suspected multiple sclerosis. Rochester-Toronto MRI Study Group. Arch Neurol. 1994; 51(1): 67–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Mushlin AI, Kern LM, Paris M, et al.: The value of diagnostic information to patients with chest pain suggestive of coronary artery disease. Med Decis Making. 2005; 25(2): 149–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Peel E, Parry O, Douglas M, et al.: Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: a qualitative analysis of patients' emotional reactions and views about information provision. Patient Educ Couns. 2004; 53(3): 269–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Barton MB, Morley DS, Moore S, et al.: Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(7): 529–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G: Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment. J Public Health Med. 1998; 20(4): 396–403. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Brett J, Austoker J: Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med. 2001; 23(4): 292–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Ong G, Austoker J, Brett J: Breast screening: adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre study. J Med Screen. 1997; 4(3): 158–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Meystre-Agustoni G, Paccaud F, Jeannin A, et al.: Anxiety in a cohort of Swiss women participating in a mammographic screening programme. J Med Screen. 2001; 8(4): 213–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Olsson P, Armelius K, Nordahl G, et al.: Women with false positive screening mammograms: how do they cope? J Med Screen. 1999; 6(2): 89–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Lerman C, Track B, Rimer BK, et al.: Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 114(8): 657–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Aro AR, Absetz SP, van Elderen TM, et al.: False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress - breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer. 2000; 36(9): 1089–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, et al.: Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol. 1991; 10(4): 259–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Ridner SH: Psychological distress: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2004; 45(5): 536–45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Murray RB, Huelskoetter MMW: Psychiatric/mental health nursing: Giving emotional care. Appleton & Lange; 1987. Reference Source
24. Rhodes VA, Watson PM: Symptom distress--the concept: past and present. Semin Oncol Nurs. Elsevier, 1987; 3(4): 242–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Izard CE, Kagan J, Zajonc RB: Emotions, cognition, and behavior. CUP Archive; 1984. Reference Source
26. Last J: Distress symptoms may be easy to miss. BMJ. 2000; 320(7236): 717. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
27. Jones MC, Johnston DW: Distress, stress and coping in first‐year student nurses. J Adv Nurs. 1997; 26(3): 475–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Lazarus RS: Fifty years of the research and theory of RS Lazarus: An analysis of historical and perennial issues. Psychology Press; 2013. Reference Source
29. Spraycar M: Stedman's medical dictionary. Williams & Wilkins; 1995. Reference Source
30. Cimprich B: Pretreatment symptom distress in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Cancer Nurs. 1999; 22(3): 185–94; quiz 195. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Massé R: Qualitative and quantitative analyses of psychological distress: methodological complementarity and ontological incommensurability. Qual Health Res. 2000; 10(3): 411–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Uchitomi Y, Mikami I, Nagai K, et al.: Depression and psychological distress in patients during the year after curative resection of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(1): 69–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Zung WW: A self-rating pain and distress scale. Psychosomatics. 1983; 24(10): 887–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. World Health Organization: WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse; 1997. Reference Source
35. Ware JE Jr: SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(24): 3130–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL: Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118(8): 622–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Wan GJ, Counte MA, Cella DF: A framework for organizing health-related quality of life research. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement. 1997; 1: 31–7.
38. Fontaine KR, Cheskin LJ, Barofsky I: Health-related quality of life in obese persons seeking treatment. J Fam Pract. 1996; 43(3): 265–70. PubMed Abstract
39. Fontaine KR, Barofsky I: Obesity and health‐related quality of life. Obes Rev. 2001; 2(3): 173–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
40. Nordin K, Påhlman L, Larsson K, et al.: Health-related quality of life and psychological distress in a population-based sample of Swedish patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002; 37(4): 450–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
41. Bonotis K, Pantelis K, Karaoulanis S, et al.: Investigation of factors associated with health‐related quality of life and psychological distress in vitiligo. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2016; 14(1): 45–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. ACTION Study Group: Health-related quality of life and psychological distress among cancer survivors in Southeast Asia: results from a longitudinal study in eight low- and middle-income countries. BMC Med. 2017; 15(1): 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
43. Bäck K, Hakeberg M, Wide U, et al.: Orofacial pain and its relationship with oral health-related quality of life and psychological distress in middle-aged women. Acta Odontol Scand. 2020; 78(1): 74–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
44. Kumarapeli Vl, de A Seneviratne R, Wijeyaratne C: Health‐related quality of life and psychological distress in polycystic ovary syndrome: a hidden facet in South Asian women. BJOG. 2011; 118(3): 319–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Halvorsen JF, Sund AM, Zeltzer L, et al.: Health-related quality of life and psychological distress in young adult survivors of childhood cancer and their association with treatment, education, and demographic factors. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(2): 529–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
46. Chan CWH, Choi KC, Chien WT, et al.: Health‐related quality‐of‐life and psychological distress of young adult survivors of childhood cancer in Hong Kong. Psychooncology. 2014; 23(2): 229–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
47. Witte K: Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communications Monographs. 1994; 61(2): 113–34. Publisher Full Text
48. Lazarus RS: Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. Am Psychol. 1982; 37(9): 1019. Publisher Full Text
49. Witte K: Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs. 1992; 59(4): 329–49. Publisher Full Text
50. Witte K: Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using the extended parallel process model to explain fear appeal successes and failures. Handbook of communication and emotion. Elsevier; 1996; 423–50. Publisher Full Text
51. Cockerham WC: Health lifestyle theory and the convergence of agency and structure. J Health Soc Behav. 2005; 46(1): 51–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
52. World Health Organization: Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020. 2013. Reference Source
53. Wang W, Lau Y, Chow A, et al.: Health-related quality of life and social support among Chinese patients with coronary heart disease in mainland China. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014; 13(1): 48–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
54. Tohmiya N, Tadaka E, Arimoto A: Cross-sectional study of cognitive stress appraisal and related factors among workers in metropolitan areas of Japan. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(6): e019404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
55. Lazarus RS: Psychological stress and the coping process. 1966. Reference Source
56. Lazarus RS, Stress SF: Appraisal and Coping New York. springer publishing company; 1984.
57. Carpenter R: A review of instruments on cognitive appraisal of stress. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016; 30(2): 271–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
58. Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J: Synthesising research evidence. Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods. 2001; 220. Reference Source
59. Hackam DG, Shojania KG, Spence JD, et al.: Influence of noninvasive cardiovascular imaging in primary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171(11): 977–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
60. Rodondi N, Auer R, de Bosset Sulzer V, et al.: Atherosclerosis screening by noninvasive imaging for cardiovascular prevention: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27(2): 220–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
61. Hollands GJ, Hankins M, Marteau TM: Visual feedback of individuals' medical imaging results for changing health behaviour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (1): CD007434. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
62. Bize R, Burnand B, Mueller Y, et al.: Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12: CD004705. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
63. Grupe DW, Nitschke JB: Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013; 14(7): 488–501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
64. Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text
65. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5(1): 69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
66. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al.: Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13(3): 141–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
67. Peters MDJ: In no uncertain terms: the importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016; 14(2): 1–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
68. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021; 19(1): 3–10. PubMed Abstract
69. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
70. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J: Searching for studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. 2008; 95–150. Publisher Full Text
71. Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, et al.: Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(2): 191–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
72. De Vet H, Eisinga A, Riphagen I, et al.: Chapter 7: searching for studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 04 [updated September 2008] The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008. Reference Source
73. Kristensen FB, Hørder M: Health technology assessment handbook: Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment; 2001.
74. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10): e1–e34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 26 Nov 2020

Author details Author details

Reindolf Anokye
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ben Jackson
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

James Dimmock
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Joanne M. Dickson
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Lauren C. Blekkenhorst
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Jonathan M. Hodgson
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Joshua R. Lewis
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Mandy Stanley
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

JRL is supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship [102817]. JMH is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) Senior Research Fellowship [APP1116937]. RA is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (International). The salary of LCB is supported by an NHMRC of Australia Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant [1172987] and a National Heart Foundation of Australia Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship [102498].
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 09 Nov 2021, 9:1376

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27432.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 28 May 2021, 9:1376

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27432.2

version 1

Published: 26 Nov 2020, 9:1376

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27432.1

© 2021 Anokye R et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Anokye R, Jackson B, Dimmock J et al. Psychological distress and quality of life following provision of vascular imaging results of the coronary and carotid arteries to asymptomatic adults: a scoping review protocol [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2021, 9:1376 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27432.3)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 3

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 09 Nov 2021

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 05 Jan 2022

Aaron Conway, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto, Canada

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.78990.r99576

The authors have addressed my ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 28 May 2021

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 06 Oct 2021

Aaron Conway, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto, Canada

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.56954.r93685

This protocol for a scoping review is well-written and provides adequate detail about the proposed methods. In general, the methods seem well-justified given the research design. My one suggestion is to re-consider the intended use of Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Most up to date guidance for scoping reviews include recommendations that critical appraisal and risk of bias assessment is not consistent with the aims of this systematic review design. For example: Peters et al. (2020¹).

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.JBI Evid Synth. 18 (10): 2119-2126 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: I have published many systematic reviews in the area of cardiovascular care.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 09 Nov 2021

Reindolf Anokye, Edith Cowan University, Australia

09 Nov 2021

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his time reviewing the manuscript. We have considered the suggestion, other recommendations such as PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (2018), and the ... Continue reading We would like to thank the reviewer for his time reviewing the manuscript. We have considered the suggestion, other recommendations such as PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (2018), and the outcomes that will be reported in this scoping review and have decided not to include any critical appraisal and risk of bias assessment for this review.
We would like to thank the reviewer for his time reviewing the manuscript. We have considered the suggestion, other recommendations such as PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (2018), and the outcomes that will be reported in this scoping review and have decided not to include any critical appraisal and risk of bias assessment for this review.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 09 Nov 2021

Reindolf Anokye, Edith Cowan University, Australia

09 Nov 2021

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his time reviewing the manuscript. We have considered the suggestion, other recommendations such as PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (2018), and the ... Continue reading We would like to thank the reviewer for his time reviewing the manuscript. We have considered the suggestion, other recommendations such as PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (2018), and the outcomes that will be reported in this scoping review and have decided not to include any critical appraisal and risk of bias assessment for this review.
We would like to thank the reviewer for his time reviewing the manuscript. We have considered the suggestion, other recommendations such as PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (2018), and the outcomes that will be reported in this scoping review and have decided not to include any critical appraisal and risk of bias assessment for this review.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 16 Jul 2021

Md Mahbub Hossain, Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

Abida Sultana, Gazi Medical College, Khulna, Bangladesh

Samia Tasnim, Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.56954.r86346

The updated version of the protocol addressed all major ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 26 Nov 2020

Views

Reviewer Report 08 Mar 2021

Md Mahbub Hossain, Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

Abida Sultana, Gazi Medical College, Khulna, Bangladesh

Samia Tasnim, Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.30316.r77059

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology.Implement Sci. 2010; 5: 69 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, et al.: Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13 (3): 141-6 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Peters M: In no uncertain terms: the importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports. 2016; 14 (2): 1-4 Publisher Full Text
4. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, et al.: Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. 2020. Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Psychosocial Epidemiology; Evidence-based Mental Health; Mental Health Policies and Systems

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 28 May 2021

Reindolf Anokye, Edith Cowan University, Australia

28 May 2021

Author Response

We want to express our gratitude to the authors who have chosen to work on such an important area of health science. With the growing burden of cardiovascular diseases, it ... Continue reading We want to express our gratitude to the authors who have chosen to work on such an important area of health science. With the growing burden of cardiovascular diseases, it is necessary to understand how such diagnoses may impact mental health and overall wellbeing in affected individuals. This prospective scoping review is likely to add great value; however, there are a few concerns that require to be addressed before the review protocol is indexed, and more importantly before the review is conducted.
Response:
We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments when reviewing the manuscript. We have extensively revised the manuscript to address the comments and feedback.

First, the authors planned to use the framework by Arksey and O'Malley, which is one of the most widely used frameworks for scoping reviews. However, this framework has undergone further improvements by Levac et al. (2010) and Peters et al. (2015, 2017). The authors may consider using the updated frameworks or give the rationale for using the current one over the more recent versions.
Response:
We agree that the updated framework would better suit this study and provide a better approach to the design of the study including collating, summarizing and reporting the results. The framework has been updated in the manuscript. Please see the study design section for details of the updated framework.

Second, in Table 1, the authors mentioned adults and international within core elements such as "perspective" and "setting," respectively. A researcher and/or a practitioner may wish to know where the population belonged to in the primary studies, which can be local/global as well as community/clinical settings. I'd suggest using "population" for adults and expanding the concept of "setting" to the community and/or clinical settings while keeping the search terms and the scope of the review as global. This would bring more clarity and might make more sense from a systematic assessment perspective on the evidence.
Response:
Table 1 has been updated as per comments under ‘study rationale and guiding question’ section of the manuscript. We have now expanded the concept of “setting” to include community and/or clinical settings and also using “population” for adults while keeping the scope of the review global.

Third, the authors must explain what "mental distress" and "quality of life" are. These concepts have varying definitions from different disciplines. It may not be feasible to do another review to summarize what they mean; however, it would be useful to have at least a working definition of these concepts that refers to some of the leading articles explaining these terms. Such explanations would be helpful to present and discuss the findings of the review in the future. However, the protocol must mention these clearly before the review begins.
Response:
We agree that "mental distress" and "quality of life" could have been explained better in the manuscript. We have replaced mental distress with psychological distress in the manuscript even though articles using mental distress will still be included in the review. Although mental distress and psychological distress are often used interchangeably, psychological distress is well defined in the literature and is perhaps more easily understood. We have also expanded our definition of quality of life and indicated that our focus is on health-related quality of life. The explanation or definition for psychological distress and health-related quality of life can be found in the third paragraph of the introduction section of the manuscript.

Lastly, in the concepts section, the authors mentioned that "studies must report" mental distress and quality of life. The use of "must" in both concepts creates a dilemma that is they will recruit articles if they (must) include both these concepts. We found this idea less practical. Rather, an article may report either "mental distress" or "quality of life," and the authors may present both as the summarized evidence, which would provide a better "map" of the evidence landscape. We would humbly request the authors to make necessary changes that reflect the true objective of the review, as they feel appropriate.
Response:
We have replaced "studies must report" with “an article may report” psychological distress and/or quality of life/health-related quality of life for inclusion in the review. This can be found in the concepts section of the manuscript.
We want to express our gratitude to the authors who have chosen to work on such an important area of health science. With the growing burden of cardiovascular diseases, it is necessary to understand how such diagnoses may impact mental health and overall wellbeing in affected individuals. This prospective scoping review is likely to add great value; however, there are a few concerns that require to be addressed before the review protocol is indexed, and more importantly before the review is conducted.
Response:
We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments when reviewing the manuscript. We have extensively revised the manuscript to address the comments and feedback.

First, the authors planned to use the framework by Arksey and O'Malley, which is one of the most widely used frameworks for scoping reviews. However, this framework has undergone further improvements by Levac et al. (2010) and Peters et al. (2015, 2017). The authors may consider using the updated frameworks or give the rationale for using the current one over the more recent versions.
Response:
We agree that the updated framework would better suit this study and provide a better approach to the design of the study including collating, summarizing and reporting the results. The framework has been updated in the manuscript. Please see the study design section for details of the updated framework.

Second, in Table 1, the authors mentioned adults and international within core elements such as "perspective" and "setting," respectively. A researcher and/or a practitioner may wish to know where the population belonged to in the primary studies, which can be local/global as well as community/clinical settings. I'd suggest using "population" for adults and expanding the concept of "setting" to the community and/or clinical settings while keeping the search terms and the scope of the review as global. This would bring more clarity and might make more sense from a systematic assessment perspective on the evidence.
Response:
Table 1 has been updated as per comments under ‘study rationale and guiding question’ section of the manuscript. We have now expanded the concept of “setting” to include community and/or clinical settings and also using “population” for adults while keeping the scope of the review global.

Third, the authors must explain what "mental distress" and "quality of life" are. These concepts have varying definitions from different disciplines. It may not be feasible to do another review to summarize what they mean; however, it would be useful to have at least a working definition of these concepts that refers to some of the leading articles explaining these terms. Such explanations would be helpful to present and discuss the findings of the review in the future. However, the protocol must mention these clearly before the review begins.
Response:
We agree that "mental distress" and "quality of life" could have been explained better in the manuscript. We have replaced mental distress with psychological distress in the manuscript even though articles using mental distress will still be included in the review. Although mental distress and psychological distress are often used interchangeably, psychological distress is well defined in the literature and is perhaps more easily understood. We have also expanded our definition of quality of life and indicated that our focus is on health-related quality of life. The explanation or definition for psychological distress and health-related quality of life can be found in the third paragraph of the introduction section of the manuscript.

Lastly, in the concepts section, the authors mentioned that "studies must report" mental distress and quality of life. The use of "must" in both concepts creates a dilemma that is they will recruit articles if they (must) include both these concepts. We found this idea less practical. Rather, an article may report either "mental distress" or "quality of life," and the authors may present both as the summarized evidence, which would provide a better "map" of the evidence landscape. We would humbly request the authors to make necessary changes that reflect the true objective of the review, as they feel appropriate.
Response:
We have replaced "studies must report" with “an article may report” psychological distress and/or quality of life/health-related quality of life for inclusion in the review. This can be found in the concepts section of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: None Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 28 May 2021

Reindolf Anokye, Edith Cowan University, Australia

28 May 2021

Author Response

We want to express our gratitude to the authors who have chosen to work on such an important area of health science. With the growing burden of cardiovascular diseases, it ... Continue reading We want to express our gratitude to the authors who have chosen to work on such an important area of health science. With the growing burden of cardiovascular diseases, it is necessary to understand how such diagnoses may impact mental health and overall wellbeing in affected individuals. This prospective scoping review is likely to add great value; however, there are a few concerns that require to be addressed before the review protocol is indexed, and more importantly before the review is conducted.
Response:
We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments when reviewing the manuscript. We have extensively revised the manuscript to address the comments and feedback.

First, the authors planned to use the framework by Arksey and O'Malley, which is one of the most widely used frameworks for scoping reviews. However, this framework has undergone further improvements by Levac et al. (2010) and Peters et al. (2015, 2017). The authors may consider using the updated frameworks or give the rationale for using the current one over the more recent versions.
Response:
We agree that the updated framework would better suit this study and provide a better approach to the design of the study including collating, summarizing and reporting the results. The framework has been updated in the manuscript. Please see the study design section for details of the updated framework.

Second, in Table 1, the authors mentioned adults and international within core elements such as "perspective" and "setting," respectively. A researcher and/or a practitioner may wish to know where the population belonged to in the primary studies, which can be local/global as well as community/clinical settings. I'd suggest using "population" for adults and expanding the concept of "setting" to the community and/or clinical settings while keeping the search terms and the scope of the review as global. This would bring more clarity and might make more sense from a systematic assessment perspective on the evidence.
Response:
Table 1 has been updated as per comments under ‘study rationale and guiding question’ section of the manuscript. We have now expanded the concept of “setting” to include community and/or clinical settings and also using “population” for adults while keeping the scope of the review global.

Third, the authors must explain what "mental distress" and "quality of life" are. These concepts have varying definitions from different disciplines. It may not be feasible to do another review to summarize what they mean; however, it would be useful to have at least a working definition of these concepts that refers to some of the leading articles explaining these terms. Such explanations would be helpful to present and discuss the findings of the review in the future. However, the protocol must mention these clearly before the review begins.
Response:
We agree that "mental distress" and "quality of life" could have been explained better in the manuscript. We have replaced mental distress with psychological distress in the manuscript even though articles using mental distress will still be included in the review. Although mental distress and psychological distress are often used interchangeably, psychological distress is well defined in the literature and is perhaps more easily understood. We have also expanded our definition of quality of life and indicated that our focus is on health-related quality of life. The explanation or definition for psychological distress and health-related quality of life can be found in the third paragraph of the introduction section of the manuscript.

Lastly, in the concepts section, the authors mentioned that "studies must report" mental distress and quality of life. The use of "must" in both concepts creates a dilemma that is they will recruit articles if they (must) include both these concepts. We found this idea less practical. Rather, an article may report either "mental distress" or "quality of life," and the authors may present both as the summarized evidence, which would provide a better "map" of the evidence landscape. We would humbly request the authors to make necessary changes that reflect the true objective of the review, as they feel appropriate.
Response:
We have replaced "studies must report" with “an article may report” psychological distress and/or quality of life/health-related quality of life for inclusion in the review. This can be found in the concepts section of the manuscript.
We want to express our gratitude to the authors who have chosen to work on such an important area of health science. With the growing burden of cardiovascular diseases, it is necessary to understand how such diagnoses may impact mental health and overall wellbeing in affected individuals. This prospective scoping review is likely to add great value; however, there are a few concerns that require to be addressed before the review protocol is indexed, and more importantly before the review is conducted.
Response:
We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments when reviewing the manuscript. We have extensively revised the manuscript to address the comments and feedback.

First, the authors planned to use the framework by Arksey and O'Malley, which is one of the most widely used frameworks for scoping reviews. However, this framework has undergone further improvements by Levac et al. (2010) and Peters et al. (2015, 2017). The authors may consider using the updated frameworks or give the rationale for using the current one over the more recent versions.
Response:
We agree that the updated framework would better suit this study and provide a better approach to the design of the study including collating, summarizing and reporting the results. The framework has been updated in the manuscript. Please see the study design section for details of the updated framework.

Second, in Table 1, the authors mentioned adults and international within core elements such as "perspective" and "setting," respectively. A researcher and/or a practitioner may wish to know where the population belonged to in the primary studies, which can be local/global as well as community/clinical settings. I'd suggest using "population" for adults and expanding the concept of "setting" to the community and/or clinical settings while keeping the search terms and the scope of the review as global. This would bring more clarity and might make more sense from a systematic assessment perspective on the evidence.
Response:
Table 1 has been updated as per comments under ‘study rationale and guiding question’ section of the manuscript. We have now expanded the concept of “setting” to include community and/or clinical settings and also using “population” for adults while keeping the scope of the review global.

Third, the authors must explain what "mental distress" and "quality of life" are. These concepts have varying definitions from different disciplines. It may not be feasible to do another review to summarize what they mean; however, it would be useful to have at least a working definition of these concepts that refers to some of the leading articles explaining these terms. Such explanations would be helpful to present and discuss the findings of the review in the future. However, the protocol must mention these clearly before the review begins.
Response:
We agree that "mental distress" and "quality of life" could have been explained better in the manuscript. We have replaced mental distress with psychological distress in the manuscript even though articles using mental distress will still be included in the review. Although mental distress and psychological distress are often used interchangeably, psychological distress is well defined in the literature and is perhaps more easily understood. We have also expanded our definition of quality of life and indicated that our focus is on health-related quality of life. The explanation or definition for psychological distress and health-related quality of life can be found in the third paragraph of the introduction section of the manuscript.

Lastly, in the concepts section, the authors mentioned that "studies must report" mental distress and quality of life. The use of "must" in both concepts creates a dilemma that is they will recruit articles if they (must) include both these concepts. We found this idea less practical. Rather, an article may report either "mental distress" or "quality of life," and the authors may present both as the summarized evidence, which would provide a better "map" of the evidence landscape. We would humbly request the authors to make necessary changes that reflect the true objective of the review, as they feel appropriate.
Response:
We have replaced "studies must report" with “an article may report” psychological distress and/or quality of life/health-related quality of life for inclusion in the review. This can be found in the concepts section of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: None Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 26 Nov 2020

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 3 (revision) 09 Nov 21		read
Version 2 (revision) 28 May 21	read	read
Version 1 26 Nov 20	read

Md Mahbub Hossain, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

Abida Sultana, Gazi Medical College, Khulna, Bangladesh

Samia Tasnim, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
Aaron Conway, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto, Canada

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

05 Jan 2022 | for Version 3

Aaron Conway, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto, Canada

16 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have addressed my comments from the initial version.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

I have published many systematic reviews in the area of cardiovascular care.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

12 Views

06 Oct 2021 | for Version 2

Aaron Conway, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto, Canada

12 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.JBI Evid Synth. 18 (10): 2119-2126 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

I have published many systematic reviews in the area of cardiovascular care.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

15 Views

16 Jul 2021 | for Version 2

Md Mahbub Hossain, Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

Abida Sultana, Gazi Medical College, Khulna, Bangladesh

Samia Tasnim, Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

15 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The updated version of the protocol addressed all major concerns that were mentioned in the prior peer-review comments.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Psychosocial Epidemiology; Evidence-based Mental Health; Mental Health Policies and Systems

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

48 Views

08 Mar 2021 | for Version 1

Md Mahbub Hossain, Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

Abida Sultana, Gazi Medical College, Khulna, Bangladesh

Samia Tasnim, Department of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

48 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Psychosocial Epidemiology; Evidence-based Mental Health; Mental Health Policies and Systems

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

28 May 2021

Reindolf Anokye, Edith Cowan University, Australia

We want to express our gratitude to the authors who have chosen to work on such an important area of health science. With the growing burden of cardiovascular diseases, it is necessary to understand how such diagnoses may impact mental health and overall wellbeing in affected individuals. This prospective scoping review is likely to add great value; however, there are a few concerns that require to be addressed before the review protocol is indexed, and more importantly before the review is conducted.
Response:
We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and valuable comments when reviewing the manuscript. We have extensively revised the manuscript to address the comments and feedback.

First, the authors planned to use the framework by Arksey and O'Malley, which is one of the most widely used frameworks for scoping reviews. However, this framework has undergone further improvements by Levac et al. (2010) and Peters et al. (2015, 2017). The authors may consider using the updated frameworks or give the rationale for using the current one over the more recent versions.
Response:
We agree that the updated framework would better suit this study and provide a better approach to the design of the study including collating, summarizing and reporting the results. The framework has been updated in the manuscript. Please see the study design section for details of the updated framework.

Second, in Table 1, the authors mentioned adults and international within core elements such as "perspective" and "setting," respectively. A researcher and/or a practitioner may wish to know where the population belonged to in the primary studies, which can be local/global as well as community/clinical settings. I'd suggest using "population" for adults and expanding the concept of "setting" to the community and/or clinical settings while keeping the search terms and the scope of the review as global. This would bring more clarity and might make more sense from a systematic assessment perspective on the evidence.
Response:
Table 1 has been updated as per comments under ‘study rationale and guiding question’ section of the manuscript. We have now expanded the concept of “setting” to include community and/or clinical settings and also using “population” for adults while keeping the scope of the review global.

Third, the authors must explain what "mental distress" and "quality of life" are. These concepts have varying definitions from different disciplines. It may not be feasible to do another review to summarize what they mean; however, it would be useful to have at least a working definition of these concepts that refers to some of the leading articles explaining these terms. Such explanations would be helpful to present and discuss the findings of the review in the future. However, the protocol must mention these clearly before the review begins.
Response:
We agree that "mental distress" and "quality of life" could have been explained better in the manuscript. We have replaced mental distress with psychological distress in the manuscript even though articles using mental distress will still be included in the review. Although mental distress and psychological distress are often used interchangeably, psychological distress is well defined in the literature and is perhaps more easily understood. We have also expanded our definition of quality of life and indicated that our focus is on health-related quality of life. The explanation or definition for psychological distress and health-related quality of life can be found in the third paragraph of the introduction section of the manuscript.

Lastly, in the concepts section, the authors mentioned that "studies must report" mental distress and quality of life. The use of "must" in both concepts creates a dilemma that is they will recruit articles if they (must) include both these concepts. We found this idea less practical. Rather, an article may report either "mental distress" or "quality of life," and the authors may present both as the summarized evidence, which would provide a better "map" of the evidence landscape. We would humbly request the authors to make necessary changes that reflect the true objective of the review, as they feel appropriate.
Response:
We have replaced "studies must report" with “an article may report” psychological distress and/or quality of life/health-related quality of life for inclusion in the review. This can be found in the concepts section of the manuscript.

View more View less

Competing Interests

None

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Mendis S, Puska P, Norrving B, et al.: Global atlas on cardiovascular disease prevention and control. World Health Organization; 2011. Reference Source

[2] 2. World Health Organization: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs): fact sheet 2017. Diambil dari: 2017. Reference Source

[3] 3. World Health Organization: Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Geneva: WHO; 2011. World Health Organization. 2016. Reference Source

[4] 4. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al.: 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(25 Pt B): 2935–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Buxton DB, Antman M, Danthi N, et al.: Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group on the translation of cardiovascular molecular imaging. Circulation. 2011; 123(19): 2157–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Devcich DA, Ellis CJ, Waltham N, et al.: Seeing what's happening on the inside: patients' views of the value of diagnostic cardiac computed tomography angiography. Br J Health Psychol. 2014; 19(4): 810–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Mamudu HM, Paul TK, Veeranki SP, et al.: The effects of coronary artery calcium screening on behavioral modification, risk perception, and medication adherence among asymptomatic adults: a systematic review. Atherosclerosis. 2014; 236(2): 338–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Nutbeam D: Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International. 2000; 15(3): 259–67. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. World Health Organization: Health Promotion Track 2: health literacy and health behaviour. 7th Global Conference on Health Promotion: track themes. Accessed on; 2015. Reference Source

[10] 10. Mushlin AI, Mooney C, Grow V, et al.: The value of diagnostic information to patients with suspected multiple sclerosis. Rochester-Toronto MRI Study Group. Arch Neurol. 1994; 51(1): 67–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Mushlin AI, Kern LM, Paris M, et al.: The value of diagnostic information to patients with chest pain suggestive of coronary artery disease. Med Decis Making. 2005; 25(2): 149–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Peel E, Parry O, Douglas M, et al.: Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: a qualitative analysis of patients' emotional reactions and views about information provision. Patient Educ Couns. 2004; 53(3): 269–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Barton MB, Morley DS, Moore S, et al.: Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(7): 529–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G: Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment. J Public Health Med. 1998; 20(4): 396–403. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Brett J, Austoker J: Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med. 2001; 23(4): 292–300. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Ong G, Austoker J, Brett J: Breast screening: adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre study. J Med Screen. 1997; 4(3): 158–68. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Meystre-Agustoni G, Paccaud F, Jeannin A, et al.: Anxiety in a cohort of Swiss women participating in a mammographic screening programme. J Med Screen. 2001; 8(4): 213–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Olsson P, Armelius K, Nordahl G, et al.: Women with false positive screening mammograms: how do they cope? J Med Screen. 1999; 6(2): 89–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Lerman C, Track B, Rimer BK, et al.: Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 114(8): 657–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Aro AR, Absetz SP, van Elderen TM, et al.: False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress - breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer. 2000; 36(9): 1089–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, et al.: Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol. 1991; 10(4): 259–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Ridner SH: Psychological distress: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2004; 45(5): 536–45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Murray RB, Huelskoetter MMW: Psychiatric/mental health nursing: Giving emotional care. Appleton & Lange; 1987. Reference Source

[24] 24. Rhodes VA, Watson PM: Symptom distress--the concept: past and present. Semin Oncol Nurs. Elsevier, 1987; 3(4): 242–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Izard CE, Kagan J, Zajonc RB: Emotions, cognition, and behavior. CUP Archive; 1984. Reference Source

[26] 26. Last J: Distress symptoms may be easy to miss. BMJ. 2000; 320(7236): 717. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Jones MC, Johnston DW: Distress, stress and coping in first‐year student nurses. J Adv Nurs. 1997; 26(3): 475–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Lazarus RS: Fifty years of the research and theory of RS Lazarus: An analysis of historical and perennial issues. Psychology Press; 2013. Reference Source

[29] 29. Spraycar M: Stedman's medical dictionary. Williams & Wilkins; 1995. Reference Source

[30] 30. Cimprich B: Pretreatment symptom distress in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Cancer Nurs. 1999; 22(3): 185–94; quiz 195. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Massé R: Qualitative and quantitative analyses of psychological distress: methodological complementarity and ontological incommensurability. Qual Health Res. 2000; 10(3): 411–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Uchitomi Y, Mikami I, Nagai K, et al.: Depression and psychological distress in patients during the year after curative resection of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(1): 69–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Zung WW: A self-rating pain and distress scale. Psychosomatics. 1983; 24(10): 887–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. World Health Organization: WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. Division of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance Abuse; 1997. Reference Source

[35] 35. Ware JE Jr: SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(24): 3130–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL: Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118(8): 622–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Wan GJ, Counte MA, Cella DF: A framework for organizing health-related quality of life research. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement. 1997; 1: 31–7.

[38] 38. Fontaine KR, Cheskin LJ, Barofsky I: Health-related quality of life in obese persons seeking treatment. J Fam Pract. 1996; 43(3): 265–70. PubMed Abstract

[39] 39. Fontaine KR, Barofsky I: Obesity and health‐related quality of life. Obes Rev. 2001; 2(3): 173–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Nordin K, Påhlman L, Larsson K, et al.: Health-related quality of life and psychological distress in a population-based sample of Swedish patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002; 37(4): 450–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Bonotis K, Pantelis K, Karaoulanis S, et al.: Investigation of factors associated with health‐related quality of life and psychological distress in vitiligo. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2016; 14(1): 45–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. ACTION Study Group: Health-related quality of life and psychological distress among cancer survivors in Southeast Asia: results from a longitudinal study in eight low- and middle-income countries. BMC Med. 2017; 15(1): 10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[43] 43. Bäck K, Hakeberg M, Wide U, et al.: Orofacial pain and its relationship with oral health-related quality of life and psychological distress in middle-aged women. Acta Odontol Scand. 2020; 78(1): 74–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Kumarapeli Vl, de A Seneviratne R, Wijeyaratne C: Health‐related quality of life and psychological distress in polycystic ovary syndrome: a hidden facet in South Asian women. BJOG. 2011; 118(3): 319–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Halvorsen JF, Sund AM, Zeltzer L, et al.: Health-related quality of life and psychological distress in young adult survivors of childhood cancer and their association with treatment, education, and demographic factors. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(2): 529–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[46] 46. Chan CWH, Choi KC, Chien WT, et al.: Health‐related quality‐of‐life and psychological distress of young adult survivors of childhood cancer in Hong Kong. Psychooncology. 2014; 23(2): 229–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[47] 47. Witte K: Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communications Monographs. 1994; 61(2): 113–34. Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Lazarus RS: Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. Am Psychol. 1982; 37(9): 1019. Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Witte K: Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs. 1992; 59(4): 329–49. Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Witte K: Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using the extended parallel process model to explain fear appeal successes and failures. Handbook of communication and emotion. Elsevier; 1996; 423–50. Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. Cockerham WC: Health lifestyle theory and the convergence of agency and structure. J Health Soc Behav. 2005; 46(1): 51–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[52] 52. World Health Organization: Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020. 2013. Reference Source

[53] 53. Wang W, Lau Y, Chow A, et al.: Health-related quality of life and social support among Chinese patients with coronary heart disease in mainland China. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014; 13(1): 48–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Tohmiya N, Tadaka E, Arimoto A: Cross-sectional study of cognitive stress appraisal and related factors among workers in metropolitan areas of Japan. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(6): e019404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[55] 55. Lazarus RS: Psychological stress and the coping process. 1966. Reference Source

[56] 56. Lazarus RS, Stress SF: Appraisal and Coping New York. springer publishing company; 1984.

[57] 57. Carpenter R: A review of instruments on cognitive appraisal of stress. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016; 30(2): 271–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[58] 58. Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J: Synthesising research evidence. Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods. 2001; 220. Reference Source

[59] 59. Hackam DG, Shojania KG, Spence JD, et al.: Influence of noninvasive cardiovascular imaging in primary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171(11): 977–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[60] 60. Rodondi N, Auer R, de Bosset Sulzer V, et al.: Atherosclerosis screening by noninvasive imaging for cardiovascular prevention: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27(2): 220–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[61] 61. Hollands GJ, Hankins M, Marteau TM: Visual feedback of individuals' medical imaging results for changing health behaviour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (1): CD007434. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[62] 62. Bize R, Burnand B, Mueller Y, et al.: Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12: CD004705. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[63] 63. Grupe DW, Nitschke JB: Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013; 14(7): 488–501. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[64] 64. Arksey H, O'Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19–32. Publisher Full Text

[65] 65. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5(1): 69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[66] 66. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al.: Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13(3): 141–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[67] 67. Peters MDJ: In no uncertain terms: the importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016; 14(2): 1–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[68] 68. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021; 19(1): 3–10. PubMed Abstract

[69] 69. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[70] 70. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J: Searching for studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. 2008; 95–150. Publisher Full Text

[71] 71. Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, et al.: Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(2): 191–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[72] 72. De Vet H, Eisinga A, Riphagen I, et al.: Chapter 7: searching for studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 04 [updated September 2008] The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008. Reference Source

[73] 73. Kristensen FB, Hørder M: Health technology assessment handbook: Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment; 2001.

[74] 74. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10): e1–e34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Psychological distress and quality of life following provision of vascular imaging results of the coronary and carotid arteries to asymptomatic adults: a scoping review protocol

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Introduction

Study rationale and guiding question

Table 1. An overview of core elements of scoping review questions.

Protocol

Methods

Identifying relevant studies

Table 2. Proposed search strategy.

Study selection

Figure 1. Selection process chart.

Charting the data

Table 3. Summary of data extraction items.

Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

Study findings and dissemination

Study status

Conclusion

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Data availability

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated