Literature DB >> 15006113

The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

John Brodersen1, Hanne Thorsen, Jill Cockburn.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review quantitative studies on women's experiences of consequences of false-positive screening mammography to assess the adequacy of the most frequently used instruments for measuring short-term and long-term psychological consequences.
METHODS: Relevant papers reporting quantitative studies on consequences of false-positive screening mammography were identified using MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycInfo databases. Articles citing development and psychometric properties of the most frequently used measures were also retrieved. Finally, the review focused on studies that had used at least one of the most frequently used measures.
RESULTS: Twenty-three relevant studies were identified. The most commonly used measures were the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). One or more of these was used in 17 of the 23 studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The GHQ, the HADS and the STAI have problems with language, content relevance, and content coverage in studies of false-positive screening mammography. These instruments should not be used to measure psychological consequences of any kind of cancer screening. The PCQ is an adequate questionnaire for measuring short-term consequences, and the PCQ is preferable to other measures because of its higher sensitivity. However, there is little evidence that the PCQ is able to adequately detect all long-term consequences of screening mammography. Given the inadequacy of the measurement instruments used, any current conclusions about the long-term consequences of false-positive results of screening mammography must remain tentative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15006113     DOI: 10.1177/096914130301100109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  19 in total

Review 1.  The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need.

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Colleen Barclay; Stacey Sheridan; Noel T Brewer; Meredith Gilliam; Andrew M Moon; William Rearick; Carolyn Ziemer; Russell Harris
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Measuring psychological consequences of screening: adaptation of the psychological consequences questionnaire into Dutch.

Authors:  A J Rijnsburger; M L Essink-Bot; E van As; J Cockburn; H J de Koning
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  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

4.  A model of the influence of false-positive mammography screening results on subsequent screening.

Authors:  Jessica T Defrank; Noel Brewer
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2010

5.  CT scan screening is associated with increased distress among subjects of the APExS.

Authors:  Christophe Paris; Marion Maurel; Amandine Luc; Audrey Stoufflet; Jean-Claude Pairon; Marc Letourneux
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer (COS-BC): development of a questionnaire.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Hanne Thorsen
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.581

7.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Dirk Siersma
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Measuring the psychological consequences of breast cancer screening: a confirmatory factor analysis of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire.

Authors:  Andrew Cooper; Helen Aucote
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Psychological consequences of MRI-based screening among women with strong family histories of breast cancer.

Authors:  Matthew Castelo; Zachary Brown; Josephine A D'Abbondanza; Nastasia V Wasilewski; Andrea Eisen; Derek Muradali; Bettina E Hansen; Eva Grunfeld; Adena S Scheer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Psychosocial consequences of allocation to lung cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Louise Mosborg Aggestrup; Mie Sara Hestbech; Volkert Siersma; Jesper Holst Pedersen; John Brodersen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.