Literature DB >> 10856064

US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.

L M Schwartz1, S Woloshin, H C Sox, B Fischhoff, H G Welch.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine women's attitudes to and knowledge of both false positive mammography results and the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ after screening mammography.
DESIGN: Cross sectional survey.
SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: 479 women aged 18-97 years who did not report a history of breast cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes to and knowledge of false positive results and the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ after screening mammography.
RESULTS: Women were aware that false positive results do occur. Their median estimate of the false positive rate for 10 years of annual screening was 20% (25th percentile estimate, 10%; 75th percentile estimate, 45%). The women were highly tolerant of false positives: 63% thought that 500 or more false positives per life saved was reasonable and 37% would tolerate 10 000 or more. Women who had had a false positive result (n=76) expressed the same high tolerance: 39% would tolerate 10 000 or more false positives. 62% of women did not want to take false positive results into account when deciding about screening. Only 8% of women thought that mammography could harm a woman without breast cancer, and 94% doubted the possibility of non-progressive breast cancers. Few had heard about ductal carcinoma in situ, a cancer that may not progress, but when informed, 60% of women wanted to take into account the possibility of it being detected when deciding about screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Women are aware of false positives and seem to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening mammography. In contrast, most women are unaware that screening can detect cancers that may never progress but feel that such information would be relevant. Education should perhaps focus less on false positives and more on the less familiar outcome of detection of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10856064      PMCID: PMC27408          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7250.1635

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  23 in total

1.  False-positive screening mammograms: good news, but more to do.

Authors:  S W Fletcher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-07-06       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization.

Authors:  M L Burman; S H Taplin; D F Herta; J G Elmore
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-07-06       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Trock; B K Rimer; A Boyce; C Jepson; P F Engstrom
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?

Authors:  P C Gøtzsche; O Olsen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-01-08       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study.

Authors:  S Woloshin; L M Schwartz; S Byram; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 7.  Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma.

Authors:  V L Ernster; J Barclay
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1997

8.  Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Trock; B K Rimer; C Jepson; D Brody; A Boyce
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.267

9.  Psychiatric morbidity associated with screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  R Ellman; N Angeli; A Christians; S Moss; J Chamberlain; P Maguire
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Quality of life following a false positive mammogram.

Authors:  I T Gram; E Lund; S E Slenker
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  55 in total

1.  Effect of screening programme on mortality from breast cancer. Benefit of 30% may be substantial overestimate.

Authors:  A B Miller
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-12-16

2.  Predictive genetics and predictive morphology have certain similarities.

Authors:  E Foucar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-09-01

3.  "Well, have I got cancer or haven't I?" The psycho-social issues for women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Simone De Morgan; Sally Redman; Kate J White; Burcu Cakir; John Boyages
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-17

5.  Challenges in ductal carcinoma in situ risk communication and decision-making: report from an American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute workshop.

Authors:  Ann H Partridge; Joann G Elmore; Debbie Saslow; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stuart J Schnitt
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Pamela M McMahon; Chung Y Kong; Daniel B Kopans; Paula D Ryan; Elissa M Ozanne; Elkan F Halpern; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Participation in mammography screening.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-10-13

8.  Informed decision making before initiating screening mammography: does it occur and does it make a difference?

Authors:  Larissa Nekhlyudov; Rong Li; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma.

Authors:  E Chamot; T V Perneger
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Imaging Testing in US Primary Care.

Authors:  Monica L Zigman Suchsland; Elizabeth Witwer; Anjali R Truitt; Danielle C Lavallee; Ying Zhang; Philip Posner; Brian Do; Patrick M Bossuyt; Victoria Hardy; Matthew J Thompson
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 5.532

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.