Literature DB >> 11038478

The impact of abnormal mammograms on psychosocial outcomes and subsequent screening.

I M Lipkus1, S Halabi, T S Strigo, B K Rimer.   

Abstract

Few studies have examined the impact of abnormal mammograms on subsequent mammography screening and psychosocial outcomes specifically as a function of the length of time that has passed since the abnormal test result. This cross-sectional report compared breast cancer screening practices and psychosocial outcomes among three groups of women. These groups were women who (1) never had an abnormal mammogram, (2) had an abnormal mammogram 2 or more years prior to the study's baseline interview, and (3) had an abnormal mammogram within 2 years prior to the study's baseline interview. Women who had an abnormal mammogram at least 2 years prior to the baseline interview expressed greater 10-year and lifetime risks of getting breast cancer than women who never had an abnormal mammogram. Women who had abnormal mammograms, independent of when they occurred, were substantially more worried about getting breast cancer than were women who never had abnormal mammograms. Women who had an abnormal mammogram within 2 years prior to the baseline interview were more likely to be on schedule for mammography, compared with women who never had an abnormal mammogram. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11038478     DOI: 10.1002/1099-1611(200009/10)9:5<402::aid-pon475>3.0.co;2-u

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  14 in total

1.  How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

Authors:  Özlem Demircioğlu; Meral Uluer; Erkin Arıbal
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2017-01-01

2.  Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Firas M Dabbous; Therese A Dolecek; Michael L Berbaum; Sarah M Friedewald; Wm Thomas Summerfelt; Kent Hoskins; Garth H Rauscher
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Breast cancer risk and provider recommendation for mammography among recently unscreened women in the United States.

Authors:  Susan A Sabatino; Risa B Burns; Roger B Davis; Russell S Phillips; Ellen P McCarthy
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Barbara K Rimer; J Michael Bowling; Jo Anne Earp; Erica S Breslau; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Longitudinal predictors of nonadherence to maintenance of mammography.

Authors:  Jennifer M Gierisch; Jo Anne Earp; Noel T Brewer; Barbara K Rimer
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Psychological Outcomes After a False Positive Mammogram: Preliminary Evidence for Ethnic Differences Across Time.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Shirley A A Beresford; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2016-02-19

7.  A model of the influence of false-positive mammography screening results on subsequent screening.

Authors:  Jessica T Defrank; Noel Brewer
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2010

8.  Health perceptions in patients who undergo screening and workup for prostate cancer.

Authors:  David A Katz; David F Jarrard; Colleen A McHorney; Stephen L Hillis; Donald A Wiebe; Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Breast cancer risk prediction and mammography biopsy decisions: a model-based study.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Elizabeth A Handorf; Jinbo Chen; Mirar N Bristol Demeter
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.043

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.