Literature DB >> 14534806

Influence of the radiographer on the pain felt during mammography.

M Van Goethem1, D Mortelmans, E Bruyninckx, I Verslegers, I Biltjes, E Van Hove, A De Schepper.   

Abstract

Mammography is the only useful examination in screening for breast cancer. Mortality from breast cancer can be reduced if women go regularly for a screening mammography. Moreover, it is still the key examination in diagnosis of breast diseases and in the follow-up of patients treated for breast cancer. Pain with mammography can deter women from going for regular screening or follow-up; therefore, it is important to reduce pain experience or discomfort from mammography. In this study we evaluate the impact of the "radiographer" on the pain risk during mammography by analysing questionnaires filled in by women and radiographers. Study results reveal that the opinion of the radiographer, the information and communication during the examination and the number of years of experience are important factors in pain and discomfort experience. The attitude of the radiographer plays an important role in the pain experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 14534806     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1686-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  25 in total

Review 1.  Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer.

Authors:  M P Rojas; E Telaro; A Russo; R Fossati; C Confalonieri; A Liberati
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2000

2.  Pain experienced by women attending breast cancer screening.

Authors:  M E Keemers-Gels; R P Groenendijk; J H van den Heuvel; C Boetes; P G Peer; T H Wobbes
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  The experience and satisfaction of women attending breast cancer screening.

Authors:  D A Bakker; N E Lightfoot; S Steggles; C Jackson
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  1998 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  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

5.  Pain and discomfort during mammography.

Authors:  A R Aro; P Absetz-Ylöstalo; T Eerola; M Pamilo; J Lönnqvist
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Palpable solid breast masses: retrospective single- and multimodality evaluation of 201 lesions.

Authors:  P A van Dam; M L Van Goethem; E Kersschot; J Vervliet; I B Van den Veyver; A De Schepper; P Buytaert
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Mammographic follow up: a vital component of breast cancer management.

Authors:  J Cawson; V Billson; I Russell
Journal:  Aust N Z J Surg       Date:  1993-07

8.  Once is enough--why some women do not continue to participate in a breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  M Elwood; B McNoe; T Smith; M Bandaranayake; T C Doyle
Journal:  N Z Med J       Date:  1998-05-22

9.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  What are the psychological factors influencing attendance, non-attendance and re-attendance at a breast screening centre?

Authors:  L J Fallowfield; A Rodway; M Baum
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 18.000

View more
  9 in total

1.  Pain and discomfort associated with mammography among urban low-income African-American women.

Authors:  Mia A Papas; Ann C Klassen
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2005-08

2.  Pain-preventing strategies in mammography: an observational study of simultaneously recorded pain and breast mechanics throughout the entire breast compression cycle.

Authors:  Jerry E de Groot; Mireille J M Broeders; Cornelis A Grimbergen; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2015-03-15       Impact factor: 2.809

3.  Client and practitioner perspectives on the screening mammography experience.

Authors:  P Whelehan; A Evans; G Ozakinci
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 2.520

4.  Experiences and perceptions about undergoing mammographic screening: a qualitative study involving women from a county in Sweden.

Authors:  Maria Norfjord Van Zyl; Sharareh Akhavan; Per Tillgren; Margareta Asp
Journal:  Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being       Date:  2018-12

5.  Modelling reassurances of clinicians with hidden Markov models.

Authors:  Valentin Popov; Alesha Ellis-Robinson; Gerald Humphris
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Evaluation of pressure-controlled mammography compression paddles with respect to force-controlled compression paddles in clinical practice.

Authors:  C R L P N Jeukens; T van Dijk; C Berben; J E Wildberger; M B I Lobbes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Patient-centered research: how do women tolerate nipple fluid aspiration as a potential screening tool for breast cancer?

Authors:  Susana I S Patuleia; Cathy B Moelans; Jasmijn Koopman; Julia E C van Steenhoven; Thijs van Dalen; Carmen C van der Pol; Agnes Jager; Margreet G E M Ausems; Paul J van Diest; Elsken van der Wall; Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 4.638

8.  Regular Mammography Screening Among African American (AA) Women: Qualitative Application of the PEN-3 Framework.

Authors:  Adebola Adegboyega; Adaeze Aroh; Kaitlin Voigts; Hatcher Jennifer
Journal:  J Transcult Nurs       Date:  2018-10-06       Impact factor: 1.869

9.  Stereotactic large-core needle breast biopsy: analysis of pain and discomfort related to the biopsy procedure.

Authors:  Judith M Hemmer; Johannes C Kelder; Hans P M van Heesewijk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-10-02       Impact factor: 5.315

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.