Literature DB >> 1392955

Discomfort and pain during mammography: description, prediction, and prevention.

D R Rutter1, M Calnan, M S Vaile, S Field, K A Wade.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify the nature of pain and discomfort experienced during mammography and how it can be ameliorated.
DESIGN: Questionnaire survey before invitation for mammography and immediately after mammography. Responses before screening were related to experience of discomfort.
SETTING: Health district in South East Thames region.
SUBJECTS: 1160 women aged 50-64 invited routinely for screening; 774 completed first questionnaire, of whom 617 had mammography. 597 completed the second questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported discomfort and pain, comparisons of discomfort with that experienced during other medical procedures, qualitative description of pain with adjective checklist.
RESULTS: 35% (206/597) of the women reported discomfort and 6% (37/595) pain. 10 minutes after mammography these figures were 4% (24/595) and 0.7% (4/595) respectively. More than two thirds of women ranked having a tooth drilled, having a smear test, and giving blood as more uncomfortable than mammography. The most important predictor of discomfort was previous expectation of pain (discomfort was reported by 21/32 (66%) women who expected pain and 186/531 (35%) who did not). Discomfort had little effect on satisfaction or intention to reattend.
CONCLUSIONS: The low levels of reported pain and discomfort shortly after mammography and the favourable comparisons with other investigations suggest that current procedures are acceptable. Since two thirds of the women experienced less pain than expected health education and promotion must ensure that accurate information is made available and publicized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1392955      PMCID: PMC1882539          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.305.6851.443

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  5 in total

1.  A pilot study of attendance for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  A Eardley; A Elkind
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Is mammography painful? A multicenter patient survey.

Authors:  P C Stomper; D B Kopans; N L Sadowsky; M R Sonnenfeld; C A Swann; R S Gelman; J E Meyer; M S Jochelson; M S Hunt; P D Allen
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1988-03

3.  The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire.

Authors:  Ronald Melzack
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 6.961

4.  Factors affecting women's response to an invitation to attend for a second breast cancer screening examination.

Authors:  M Orton; R Fitzpatrick; A Fuller; D Mant; C Mlynek; M Thorogood
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Patient discomfort during screen-film mammography.

Authors:  V P Jackson; A M Lex; D J Smith
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 11.105

  5 in total
  18 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Pain during mammography.

Authors:  G C Jenkins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-09-19

3.  The effect of access and satisfaction on regular mammogram and Papanicolaou test screening in a multiethnic population.

Authors:  Carol P Somkin; Stephen J McPhee; Tung Nguyen; Susan Stewart; Sarah J Shema; Bang Nguyen; Rena Pasick
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 4.  Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 3. Physical, psychological and social harm.

Authors:  K G Marshall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-07-15       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Philippe Henrot; Martine Boisserie-Lacroix; Véronique Boute; Philippe Troufléau; Bruno Boyer; Grégory Lesanne; Véronique Gillon; Emmanuel Desandes; Edith Netter; Maryam Saadate; Anne Tardivon; Christine Grentzinger; Julia Salleron; Guillaume Oldrini
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  An unfree NHS and medical press in an unfree society.

Authors:  R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-12-17

7.  Mammography: influence of departmental practice and women's characteristics on patient satisfaction: comparison of six departments in Norway.

Authors:  K Løken; S Steine; E Laerum
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1998-09

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England.

Authors:  S Sutton; G Saidi; G Bickler; J Hunter
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  Influence of the radiographer on the pain felt during mammography.

Authors:  M Van Goethem; D Mortelmans; E Bruyninckx; I Verslegers; I Biltjes; E Van Hove; A De Schepper
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-11-14       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.