A diagnostic label can have harms and benefits, particularly when provided following routine health screening tests. Whether these are discussed in clinical encounters is unknown.

To investigate whether potential impacts of diagnostic labelling are discussed before routine screening for non-cancer health conditions and explore the perceived value of such discussions by general practitioners (GPs) and healthcare consumers.

Eleven semi-structured interviews with GPs and two focus groups with eight consumers were conducted. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis methods based on framework analysis.

Prior to routine screening, most GPs did not discuss the potential consequences of diagnostic labelling, and no consumer recalled discussions of this nature. In contrast, many GPs provided information regarding the screening procedure and possible test limitations. Both GPs and consumers identified that it would be valuable to discuss the potential impacts of a diagnostic label; however, preferences varied as to the content and timing (i.e. before or after screening) of this discussion. Six themes that examine the utility of discussing the consequences of diagnostic labelling were identified: patient empowerment, patient variability, condition-specific information, GP and patient interactions and relationship, GP role and responsibilities, and characteristics of screening.

The practice and perceived value of discussing diagnostic labelling consequences were recognised as important by both GPs and consumers. However, preferences regarding the content of discussions and whether these occurred in clinical encounters before or after screening varied.

Screening for asymptomatic health conditions is perceived as mostly beneficial, with possible harms receiving little attention.

To quantify proximal and longer-term consequences for individuals receiving a diagnostic label following screening for an asymptomatic, non-cancer health condition.

Five electronic databases were searched (inception to November 2022) for studies that recruited asymptomatic screened individuals who received or did not receive a diagnostic label. Eligible studies reported psychological, psychosocial and/or behavioural outcomes before and after screening results. Independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions). Results were meta-analysed or descriptively reported.

Sixteen studies were included. Twelve studies addressed psychological outcomes, four studies examined behavioural outcomes and none reported psychosocial outcomes. Risk of bias was judged as low (n = 8), moderate (n = 5) or serious (n = 3). Immediately after receiving results, anxiety was significantly higher for individuals receiving versus not receiving a diagnostic label (mean difference −7.28, 95% CI −12.85 to −1.71). On average, anxiety increased from the non-clinical to clinical range, but returned to the non-clinical range in the longer term. No significant immediate or longer-term differences were found for depression or general mental health. Absenteeism did not significantly differ from the year before to the year after screening.

The impacts of screening asymptomatic, non-cancer health conditions are not universally positive. Limited research exists regarding longer-term impacts. Well-designed, high-quality studies further investigating these impacts are required to assist development of protocols that minimise psychological distress following diagnosis.