Literature DB >> 11318909

Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits.

M B Barton1, S Moore, S Polk, E Shtatland, J G Elmore, S W Fletcher.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure how often a breast-related concern was documented in medical records after screening mammography according to the mammogram result (normal, or true-negative vs false-positive) and to measure changes in health care utilization in the year after the mammogram.
DESIGN: Cohort study.
SETTING: Large health maintenance organization in New England. PATIENTS: Group of 496 women with false-positive screening mammograms and a comparison group of 496 women with normal screening mammograms, matched for location and year of mammogram.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 1) Documentation in clinicians' notes of patient concern about the breast and 2) ambulatory health care utilization, both breast-related and non-breast-related, in the year after the mammogram. Fifty (10%) of 496 women with false-positive mammograms had documentation of breast-related concern during the 12 months after the mammogram, compared to 1 (0.2%) woman with a normal mammogram (P =.001). Documented concern increased with the intensity of recommended follow-up (P =.009). Subsequent ambulatory visits, not related to the screening mammogram, increased in the year after the mammogram among women with false-positive mammograms, both in terms of breast-related visits (incidence ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69 to 5.93) and non-breast-related visits (incidence ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.25).
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians document concern about breast cancer in 10% of women who have false-positive mammograms, and subsequent use of health care services are increased among women with false-positive mammogram results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11318909      PMCID: PMC1495181          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.00329.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  31 in total

1.  Genetic counselling for hereditary breast cancer.

Authors:  B N Peshkin; C Lerman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-06-26       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  False positive rate of screening mammography.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-08-20       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Women with false positive screening mammograms: how do they cope?

Authors:  P Olsson; K Armelius; G Nordahl; P Lenner; G Westman
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.136

4.  The consequences of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of Lyme disease: an observational study.

Authors:  M C Reid; R T Schoen; J Evans; J C Rosenberg; R I Horwitz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1998-03-01       Impact factor: 25.391

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.  Distressed or relieved? Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening in The Netherlands.

Authors:  W Scaf-Klomp; R Sanderman; H B van de Wiel; R Otter; W J van den Heuvel
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  Women's attitudes about receiving mammographic results directly from radiologists.

Authors:  S Liu; L W Bassett; J Sayre
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Short-interval follow-up mammography versus immediate core biopsy of benign breast lesions: assessment of patient stress.

Authors:  K K Lindfors; J O'Connor; C R Acredolo; S E Liston
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Diagnostic testing following screening mammography in the elderly.

Authors:  H G Welch; E S Fisher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment.

Authors:  J Brett; J Austoker; G Ong
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1998-12
View more
  21 in total

1.  Screening mammography for women aged 40-49: are we off the fence yet?

Authors:  M B Barton
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Breast cancer screening: can we talk?

Authors:  R G Miller
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Perspectives on mammography after receipt of secondary screening owing to a false positive.

Authors:  Maria D Thomson; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2015-01-31

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.  Healthcare use after screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Margaret M Byrne; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Wei Zhao; Joel L Weissfeld; Mark S Roberts
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  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

8.  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

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

10.  Scientific second-order 'nudging' or lobbying by interest groups: the battle over abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programmes.

Authors:  Thomas Ploug; Søren Holm; John Brodersen
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2014-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.