Literature DB >> 10070302

Breast screening: the psychological sequelae of false-positive recall in women with and without a family history of breast cancer.

F J Gilbert1, C M Cordiner, I R Affleck, D B Hood, D Mathieson, L G Walker.   

Abstract

The psychological effects of false-positive mammography were evaluated in 124 women who had taken part in the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. In addition, the effects of recall on women with and without a family history were compared. These women were asked to complete the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) before being invited to attend for screening, at recall and 5 weeks and 4 months after recall. At screening and at recall, the women were asked to complete the Health Questionnaire (HQ) which measures stress-related behaviour changes in the previous week. In the week before screening, compared with women who did not have a family history of breast cancer, women with a family history had lower scores on HADS depression and reported fewer stress-related behaviour changes. At recall, regardless of family history, the women were more likely to have borderline or clinically significant anxiety than at baseline or screening. Nevertheless, for most women, recall-induced anxiety was relatively transient (less than 5 weeks). Compared with women without a family history, women with a family history were more anxious 4 months after recall, although their anxiety scores tended to be lower (P < 0.06) than at baseline. A strength of the present study is that the initial baseline measure was uncontaminated by the screening process. Women who did not complete questionnaires at one or more of the subsequent time points scored higher on HADS depression at baseline, indicating that the results are likely to have underestimated the effects of recall. Screening appears to be less stressful for women with a family history than for those without a history. However, for both groups recall causes short term distress. Breast screening programmes should ensure that steps are taken to minimise the number of women who are recalled for unnecessary investigations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10070302     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(98)00294-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  19 in total

Review 1.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

2.  Psychological impact of breast cancer screening in Japan.

Authors:  Atsuko Kitano; Hideko Yamauchi; Takashi Hosaka; Hiroshi Yagata; Keiko Hosokawa; Sachiko Ohde; Seigo Nakamura; Masafumi Takimoto; Hiroko Tsunoda
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  How trustworthy is a diagnosis in head and neck surgical pathology? A consideration of diagnostic discrepancies (errors).

Authors:  Julia A Woolgar; Alfio Ferlito; Kenneth O Devaney; Alessandra Rinaldo; Leon Barnes
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  The psychological impact of a false-positive screening mammogram in Barcelona.

Authors:  Rebecca Espasa; Cristiane Murta-Nascimento; Ramón Bayés; Maria Sala; Montserrat Casamitjana; Francesc Macià; Xavier Castells
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Diana L Miglioretti; Natasha K Stout; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Diana S M Buist; Hui Huang; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Oguzhan Alagoz; Aimee M Near; Karla Kerlikowske; Heidi D Nelson; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Clinical, demographic, and situational factors linked to distress associated with benign breast biopsy.

Authors:  Rachel F Steffens; Heather R Wright; Molly Y Hester; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2011

7.  Cumulative incidence of false-positive results in repeated, multimodal cancer screening.

Authors:  Jennifer Miller Croswell; Barnett S Kramer; Aimee R Kreimer; Phil C Prorok; Jian-Lun Xu; Stuart G Baker; Richard Fagerstrom; Thomas L Riley; Jonathan D Clapp; Christine D Berg; John K Gohagan; Gerald L Andriole; David Chia; Timothy R Church; E David Crawford; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Lois Lamerato; Douglas J Reding; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Dirk Siersma
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

9.  FIT false-positives in colorectal cancer screening experience psychological distress up to 6 weeks after colonoscopy.

Authors:  M J Denters; M Deutekom; M L Essink-Bot; P M Bossuyt; P Fockens; E Dekker
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  Towards personalized screening: Cumulative risk of breast cancer screening outcomes in women with and without a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Theodora Maria Ripping; Rebecca A Hubbard; Johannes D M Otten; Gerard J den Heeten; André L M Verbeek; Mireille J M Broeders
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 7.396

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.