The psychological effect of a screening programme and clinical trial for hypertension upon the participants

Ah, Mann

doi:10.1017/s0033291700004402

Cited by 70 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also analyzed the data according to whether the hypertensive individuals were previously diagnosed or not, and found no difference in the absenteeism rates. The British Medical Research Council trial 10 of treatment of moderate hypertension found no adverse effects of labeling 1 year after the diagnosis had been made, which may be explained by the fact that the intervention was run in special clinics run by nurses. Both of these studies incorporated more intensive interactions between the patients and their health care providers than is often the case in everyday practice.…”

Section: Observational Studies Of Labelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Now We Are Sick: Labeling and Hypertension

Pickering

2006

J of Clinical Hypertension

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Observational Studies Of Labelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Now We Are Sick: Labeling and Hypertension

Pickering

2006

J of Clinical Hypertension

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The first study, by Cassileth et al (1986), examined psychological effects in two cancer trials. The remaining studies were based on single placebo-controlled trials of treatments for hypertension (Mann, 1977) and HIV/AIDS (Robiner et al, 1993).…”

Section: What Are the Psychological Effects Of Participating In Trialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomised controlled trials.

Edwards¹,

Lilford²,

Braunholtz³

et al. 1998

Health Technology Assessment

146

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA web site (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Panel and funded as project number 93/41/02. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will, in England, be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

show abstract

“…Adjustment ofthe cut-off to 3 and above resulted in some improvement in sensitivity but it still stood at only 71%. Mann (1977Mann ( , 1984 investigated male subjects who had been invited to attend a preventive hypertension service. The cut-off point on the GHQ-SO was 3 and above and the response rate 75%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%