Literature DB >> 11873891

Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance.

J Brett1, J Austoker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 1995-1996 a study was commenced investigating the experience of 'false-positive' women, i.e. who had undergone further investigations following routine breast screening and received a clear final result. These women were found to experience significantly greater adverse psychological consequences at 1 month, 5 months and 11 months after assessment compared with women who received a clear result after the initial basic mammogram. The present study follows up these 'false-positive' women 3 years later (at 35 months) just before being invited for their next routine breast screening. It investigates the effect of the previous experience of breast screening on adverse psychological consequences reported by false-positive women at this time, and explores factors that may be associated with the current adverse psychological consequences. Factors influencing attendance for the forthcoming appointment are reported, and the non-attendance rate is monitored.
METHODS: Women who had previously completed a questionnaire 1 month, 5 months and 11 months after their last breast screening 3 years ago, were invited to complete a postal questionnaire just before being invited to attend for their next routine mammogram 3 years later. Attendance for this appointment was monitored. A brief questionnaire was sent to non-attenders to ascertain their reasons for not attending.
RESULTS: The response rate was 77 per cent (387/505). Women who, at their last routine breast screening, had received a clear result after fine needle aspiration (FNA) at assessment, after a surgical biopsy or after a 6 month early recall appointment, all suffered significantly greater adverse psychological consequences at 1 month before returning for routine breast screening 3 years later than women who had received a clear result after the initial mammogram at their last routine breast screening. They were between 1.7 and 2 times more likely to suffer psychological consequences than women who received a clear result after their last mammogram. Women who had received a clear result at assessment without undergoing FNA reported higher psychological consequences than those who received a clear result after mammography, but the difference was not significant (relative risk 1.28, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.82-2.00). Fifteen per cent of those who had undergone assessment 3 years earlier did not attend their next routine breast screening appointment compared with 8 per cent of those who received a clear result after mammography (p = 0.035). Factors associated with adverse psychological consequences are reported.
CONCLUSION: Despite having received a final clear result during their previous routine breast screening 3 years ago, women who had undergone FNA, surgical biopsy or been placed on early recall suffered significantly greater adverse psychological consequences at 1 month before their next routine breast screening appointment than women who had received a clear result after their initial mammogram at their last routine breast screening. Having undergone further investigations did not necessarily motivate women to attend for their next routine appointment, with 15 per cent of these women not returning for routine screening 3 years on.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11873891     DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/23.4.292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Public Health Med        ISSN: 0957-4832


  45 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Lucia Mirea; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Linda Rabeneck; Derek Muradali
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Effect of screening result on waiting times to assessment and breast cancer diagnosis: results from the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Verna Mai; Erika E Halapy; Rene S Shumak; Frances P O'Malley; Neil S Klar
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug

Review 4.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Non-operative diagnosis--effect on repeat-operation rates in the UK breast screening programme.

Authors:  M G Wallis; S Cheung; O Kearins; G M Lawrence
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-08-28       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.

Authors:  Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Gerard J den Heeten; Luc J A Strobbe; Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  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

10.  'The thing is not knowing': patients' perspectives on surveillance of an indeterminate pulmonary nodule.

Authors:  Renda Soylemez Wiener; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Jack A Clark
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.