Literature DB >> 10854941

False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress - breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer.

A R Aro1, S Pilvikki Absetz, T M van Elderen, E van der Ploeg, L J van der Kamp.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine psychological distress in a mammography screening process as a consequence of screening after adjusting for background, personality and prescreening distress. Subjects, aged 50 years, were invitees at their first screening. There were three groups; normal findings (n=1407), false-positive findings (n=492) and referents from outside the screening programme (n=1718, age 48-49 years). Distress was measured as illness worry, anxiety, depression, cancer beliefs and early detection behaviour. Measurements were one month before screening invitation with follow-ups at 2 and 12 months postscreening. At 2 months, there was a moderate multivariate effect of group on distress; and intrusive thinking and worry about breast cancer, in particular, were most frequent amongst the false positives. Intrusive thinking still prevailed at 12 months, in addition to a higher perceived breast cancer risk and susceptibility. Distress related to screening and false-positive findings seems to be moderate, but prevailing cancer-specific concerns call for improvements in screening programmes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10854941     DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00065-4

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


  27 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-04

3.  False-positive mammography and depressed mood in a screening population: findings from the New Hampshire Mammography Network.

Authors:  C J Gibson; J Weiss; M Goodrich; T Onega
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 2.341

4.  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

5.  Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Cristina S Hammond; Lucy G Hanna; Margaret R Grove; Mary Brown; Qianfei Wang; Karen Lindfors; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 ("Age" trial).

Authors:  Louise E Johns; Sue M Moss
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-09-13       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Impact of prostate cancer testing: an evaluation of the emotional consequences of a negative biopsy result.

Authors:  R C Macefield; C Metcalfe; J A Lane; J L Donovan; K N L Avery; J M Blazeby; L Down; D E Neal; F C Hamdy; K Vedhara
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 8.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Patients' views on follow up of colorectal cancer: implications for risk communication and decision making.

Authors:  S Papagrigoriadis; B Heyman
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 10.  A new algorithm in patients with elevated and/or rising prostate-specific antigen level, minor lower urinary tract symptoms, and negative multisite prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Koenraad van Renterghem; Gommert Van Koeveringe; Ruth Achten; Philip van Kerrebroeck
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 2.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.