Literature DB >> 11152810

False-positive screening mammograms: effect of immediate versus later work-up on patient stress.

K K Lindfors1, J O'Connor, R A Parker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the stress experienced by women who had false-positive screening mammograms and had undergone immediate on-site diagnostic imaging evaluation with that experienced by those who had been recalled for subsequent imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective survey was mailed to women with false-positive screening mammograms that had proved negative or benign at diagnostic imaging. The women were divided into (a) those who had undergone diagnostic imaging during the same appointment as their screening examination and (b) those who had returned at a later date for work-up. The survey included questions about stress that was related to the screening and diagnostic experiences, how subjects had been notified about screening results, and their breast health histories.
RESULTS: From the group that had undergone immediate work-up (n = 100), 50 eligible surveys were received; 71 were received from women who had undergone later work-ups (n = 176). The self-reported overall stress was significantly greater (P =.027) in the group recalled for subsequent diagnostic imaging. Among all respondents, stress from a false-positive screening result was greatest in women younger than 50 years of age with a positive first-degree family history of breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: Providing immediate on-site diagnostic evaluation can reduce the stress of a false-positive screening mammogram.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11152810     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.218.1.r01ja35247

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Pancreatic cancer risk counselling and screening: impact on perceived risk and psychological functioning.

Authors:  Christine Maheu; Andrea Vodermaier; Heidi Rothenmund; Steve Gallinger; Paola Ardiles; Kara Semotiuk; Spring Holter; Saumea Thayalan; Mary Jane Esplen
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Primary care visit use after positive fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Christopher D Jensen; Wei K Zhao; Alfred I Neugut; Benjamin Lebwohl; Jasmin A Tiro; Lawrence H Kushi; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?

Authors:  Sara L Jackson; Andrea J Cook; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; R James Brenner; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  A multisite telemammography system for remote management of screening mammography: an assessment of technical, operational, and clinical issues.

Authors:  Joseph K Leader; Christiane M Hakim; Marie A Ganott; Denise M Chough; Luisa P Wallace; Ronald J Clearfield; Ronald L Perrin; John M Drescher; Glenn S Maitz; Jules H Sumkin; David Gur
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Breast biopsy patterns and findings among older women undergoing screening mammography: The role of age and comorbidity.

Authors:  Shailesh Advani; Linn Abraham; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; John T Schousboe; Joshua Demb; Dongyu Zhang; Louise C Walter; Christoph I Lee; Dejana Braithwaite; Ellen S O'Meara
Journal:  J Geriatr Oncol       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 3.929

7.  Online support: Impact on anxiety in women who experience an abnormal screening mammogram.

Authors:  Eniola T Obadina; Lori L Dubenske; Helene E McDowell; Amy K Atwood; Deborah K Mayer; Ryan W Woods; David H Gustafson; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 4.380

8.  Waiting time and the psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography: cohort study.

Authors:  Bruno Heleno; Volkert Siersma; John Brodersen
Journal:  J Negat Results Biomed       Date:  2015-04-30
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.