OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the emotional and psychopathological impact associated with a second-stage screening for breast cancer. METHOD: We used a short-term longitudinal design. Interviews were conducted with 1195 women of 45-65 years old in three temporal conditions (premammogram, postmammogram, and follow-up). Participants included women attending for regular breast cancer screening who were recalled for a further mammogram (i.e., second-stage breast cancer screening) and women who were not recalled. Affective-cognitive concerns about cancer (worry, fear, and perceived vulnerability) were rated using a 10-point Likert scale. Psychopathology was assessed using the Hopkins Symptom Check List-Revised (SCL-90-R). RESULTS: Women attending the second-stage screening exhibited significantly higher levels of breast cancer worries, fears, and beliefs than women attending for routine screening before obtaining the results of the mammogram. This affective-emotional impact disappeared quickly and was not relevant 2 months following the mammogram. Despite the fact that levels of psychopathological symptoms were higher in the premammogram condition, there were no differences between groups on these measures. CONCLUSION: These results provide support for the hypothesis that women recalled for further mammograms tend to experience high levels of affective-cognitive distress but not psychopathological symptoms. Moreover, results do not sustain the prediction that this psychological impact persists beyond receipt of a negative result. Some recommendations to reduce these psychological side effects are suggested.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the emotional and psychopathological impact associated with a second-stage screening for breast cancer. METHOD: We used a short-term longitudinal design. Interviews were conducted with 1195 women of 45-65 years old in three temporal conditions (premammogram, postmammogram, and follow-up). Participants included women attending for regular breast cancer screening who were recalled for a further mammogram (i.e., second-stage breast cancer screening) and women who were not recalled. Affective-cognitive concerns about cancer (worry, fear, and perceived vulnerability) were rated using a 10-point Likert scale. Psychopathology was assessed using the Hopkins Symptom Check List-Revised (SCL-90-R). RESULTS:Women attending the second-stage screening exhibited significantly higher levels of breast cancer worries, fears, and beliefs than women attending for routine screening before obtaining the results of the mammogram. This affective-emotional impact disappeared quickly and was not relevant 2 months following the mammogram. Despite the fact that levels of psychopathological symptoms were higher in the premammogram condition, there were no differences between groups on these measures. CONCLUSION: These results provide support for the hypothesis that women recalled for further mammograms tend to experience high levels of affective-cognitive distress but not psychopathological symptoms. Moreover, results do not sustain the prediction that this psychological impact persists beyond receipt of a negative result. Some recommendations to reduce these psychological side effects are suggested.
Authors: Jules H Sumkin; Marie A Ganott; Denise M Chough; Victor J Catullo; Margarita L Zuley; Dilip D Shinde; Christiane M Hakim; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 3.173
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
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: Wei-Ying Sung; Hui-Chuan Yang; I-Chen Liao; Yu-Ting Su; Fu-Husan Chen; Shu-Ling Chen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.390
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