Literature DB >> 11069862

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 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: A total of 479 women aged 18 to 97 years who did not report a history of breast cancer. Main outcome measures Attitudes and knowledge about 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-positive results: 63% thought that 500 or more false-positives per life saved was reasonable, and 37% would tolerate a rate of 10,000 or more. Women who had had a false-positive result (n = 76) expressed the same high tolerance: 30 (39%) would tolerate 10,000 or more false-positives. In all, 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 nonprogressive breast cancers. Few had heard of 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-positive results 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 think that such information would be relevant. Education should perhaps focus less on false-positive results and more on the less-familiar outcome of the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11069862      PMCID: PMC1071147          DOI: 10.1136/ewjm.173.5.307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  West J Med        ISSN: 0093-0415


  23 in total

1.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; S M Rubin; C Sandrock; V L Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-11       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Actual causes of death in the United States.

Authors:  J M McGinnis; W H Foege
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-11-10       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  How white and African Americans view their health and social problems. Different experiences, different expectations.

Authors:  R J Blendon; A C Scheck; K Donelan; C A Hill; M Smith; D Beatrice; D Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-25       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  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

5.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; E A Sickles; V Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-07-03       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  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

7.  Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  V L Ernster; J Barclay; K Kerlikowske; D Grady; C Henderson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-03-27       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England.

Authors:  S Sutton; G Saidi; G Bickler; J Hunter
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15-25 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy.

Authors:  D L Page; W D Dupont; L W Rogers; R A Jensen; P A Schuyler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial.

Authors:  E Lidbrink; J Elfving; J Frisell; E Jonsson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-02-03
View more
  8 in total

1.  Pointing the way to informed medical decision making: test characteristics of clinical breast examination.

Authors:  Mary B Barton; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-08-31       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Discovery of breast cancers within 1 year of a normal screening mammogram: how are they found?

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Elizabeth Steiner; Martha E Goodrich; Allen J Dietrich; Claudia J Kasales; Julia E Weiss; Todd MacKenzie
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  CT colonography: computer-assisted detection of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  C Robinson; S Halligan; G Iinuma; W Topping; S Punwani; L Honeyfield; S A Taylor
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old.

Authors:  Carmen L Lewis; Michael P Pignone; Stacey L Sheridan; Stephen M Downs; Linda S Kinsinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Modeling screening, prevention, and delaying of Alzheimer's disease: an early-stage decision analytic model.

Authors:  Nicolas M Furiak; Robert W Klein; Kristin Kahle-Wrobleski; Eric R Siemers; Eric Sarpong; Timothy M Klein
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 6.  Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods.

Authors:  Jamie L Carter; Russell J Coletti; Russell P Harris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-01-07

7.  Survey of public definitions of the term 'overdiagnosis' in the UK.

Authors:  Alex Ghanouni; Susanne F Meisel; Cristina Renzi; Jane Wardle; Jo Waller
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Public understanding of the purpose of cancer screening: A population-based survey.

Authors:  Amanda J Chorley; Yasemin Hirst; Charlotte Vrinten; Christian von Wagner; Jane Wardle; Jo Waller
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 2.136

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.