G Meystre-Agustoni1, F Paccaud, A Jeannin, F Dubois-Arber. 1. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), School of Medicine, Bugnon 17, University of Lausanne, CH-1005 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To follow up anxiety in a cohort of women screened for breast cancer. METHODS: Within the framework of a pilot screening programme for breast cancer in the Canton of Vaud (Switzerland), a cohort of 924 participants aged 50-70 years were invited to answer questions on anxiety related to mammography screening. Anxiety was measured using a specific tool, the psychological consequences questionnaire (PCQ), and a new single item, direct question, breast cancer anxiety indicator (BCA). Participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire at four different phases: at screening, before the result, and 2 and 8 weeks after the result. The final response rate was 93.7%. Predictors of anxiety at each phase were assessed using multiple regression. RESULTS: Among those screening negative (94.7%), anxiety at screening was very low and remained so during the screening process. Among those screening false positive, anxiety was significantly higher 8 weeks after having received a negative diagnosis. Predictors of anxiety before screening were lower education and higher age, with a strong exogenous anxiety component. For subsequent phases, the initial anxiety score and education were the main determinants. Furthermore, a false positive result at screening was the most important predictor of anxiety 2 months after negative diagnosis. Anxiety measured with the BCA was strongly correlated with the PCQ. CONCLUSION: Anxiety was very low at screening and remained so during the process for negative women. Initial anxiety level was a strong predictor of anxiety during the entire process, up to 8 weeks after a negative result, and could be easily assessed using the BCA. The sustained higher anxiety level among those screening false positive is an undesirable side effect of the programme.
OBJECTIVES: To follow up anxiety in a cohort of women screened for breast cancer. METHODS: Within the framework of a pilot screening programme for breast cancer in the Canton of Vaud (Switzerland), a cohort of 924 participants aged 50-70 years were invited to answer questions on anxiety related to mammography screening. Anxiety was measured using a specific tool, the psychological consequences questionnaire (PCQ), and a new single item, direct question, breast cancer anxiety indicator (BCA). Participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire at four different phases: at screening, before the result, and 2 and 8 weeks after the result. The final response rate was 93.7%. Predictors of anxiety at each phase were assessed using multiple regression. RESULTS: Among those screening negative (94.7%), anxiety at screening was very low and remained so during the screening process. Among those screening false positive, anxiety was significantly higher 8 weeks after having received a negative diagnosis. Predictors of anxiety before screening were lower education and higher age, with a strong exogenous anxiety component. For subsequent phases, the initial anxiety score and education were the main determinants. Furthermore, a false positive result at screening was the most important predictor of anxiety 2 months after negative diagnosis. Anxiety measured with the BCA was strongly correlated with the PCQ. CONCLUSION:Anxiety was very low at screening and remained so during the process for negative women. Initial anxiety level was a strong predictor of anxiety during the entire process, up to 8 weeks after a negative result, and could be easily assessed using the BCA. The sustained higher anxiety level among those screening false positive is an undesirable side effect of the programme.
Authors: Shiela M Strauss; Mary Rosedale; Michael A Pesce; Caroline Juterbock; Navjot Kaur; Joe DePaola; Deborah Goetz; Mark S Wolff; Dolores Malaspina; Ann Danoff Journal: Point Care Date: 2014-12
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
Authors: Joshua R Lewis; Mandy Stanley; Reindolf Anokye; Ben Jackson; James Dimmock; Joanne M Dickson; Lauren C Blekkenhorst; Jonathan M Hodgson Journal: F1000Res Date: 2020-11-26
Authors: Kim Tam Bui; Roger Liang; Belinda E Kiely; Chris Brown; Haryana M Dhillon; Prunella Blinman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 2.692