Literature DB >> 15989208

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

Mia A Papas1, Ann C Klassen.   

Abstract

African-American women have lower rates of breast cancer screening than Caucasian women. Discomfort during mammography may deter women from rescreening. Research to date has focused primarily on Caucasian women. This study examined mammography-associated discomfort among urban, low-income African-American women, and how discomfort influenced rescreening intentions. Using survey data from 530 urban African-American women aged 45 years and older, we assessed sociodemographic, psychological, and health-related predictors of pain or discomfort, and associations between pain or discomfort and intention for rescreening. Seventy-six percent of women reported discomfort; reasons included machine compression (96%), breast size (36%), stature (30%), and roughness by technicians (18%). Intention to rescreen within 2 years was significantly reduced with reporting any discomfort (OR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.98), reporting two specific reasons-stature (OR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.72) and technician roughness (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26, 0.72), and attributing more sources for pain or discomfort (p for trend = 0.02). Most women reported discomfort; for some, this influenced intended adherence. Offering women the opportunity to control the amount of compression may reduce the pain associated with mammography and subsequently increase compliance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15989208     DOI: 10.1007/s10900-005-3704-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Health        ISSN: 0094-5145


  25 in total

1.  Maintaining mammography adherence through telephone counseling in a church-based trial.

Authors:  N Duan; S A Fox; K P Derose; S Carson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 9.308

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.  Examination of the temporal relationship between smoking and major depressive disorder among low-income women in public primary care clinics.

Authors:  Isabel C Scarinci; Janet Thomas; Phillip J Brantley; Glenn N Jones
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug

4.  Church-based health promotion: an untapped resource for women 65 and older.

Authors:  L B Ransdell
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  1995 May-Jun

5.  If we gave away mammograms, who would get them? A neighborhood evaluation of a no-cost breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  Ann C Klassen; Ann L M Smith; Helen I Meissner; James Zabora; Barbara Curbow; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Major depression and cigarette smoking: results of a 21-year longitudinal study.

Authors:  D M Fergusson; R D Goodwin; L J Horwood
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.723

7.  Impact of patient-controlled compression on the mammography experience.

Authors:  P J Kornguth; B K Rimer; M R Conaway; D C Sullivan; K E Catoe; A L Stout; J S Brackett
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 11.105

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.  Women's responses to the mammography experience.

Authors:  M K Fine; B K Rimer; P Watts
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec

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
  7 in total

Review 1.  Cancer screening in renal transplant recipients: what is the evidence?

Authors:  Germaine Wong; Jeremy R Chapman; Jonathan C Craig
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.237

2.  Can Breast Compression Be Reduced in Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis?

Authors:  Greeshma A Agasthya; Ellen D'Orsi; Yoon-Jin Kim; Priyanka Handa; Christopher P Ho; Carl J D'Orsi; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Tolerability of breast ductal lavage in women from families at high genetic risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Jennifer T Loud; Ellen Burke Beckjord; Kathryn Nichols; June Peters; Ruthann Giusti; Mark H Greene
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 2.809

4.  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

5.  Motion artifacts assessment and correction using optical tracking in synchrotron radiation breast CT.

Authors:  Luca Brombal; Lucia Mariel Arana Peña; Fulvia Arfelli; Renata Longo; Francesco Brun; Adriano Contillo; Francesca Di Lillo; Giuliana Tromba; Vittorio Di Trapani; Sandro Donato; Ralf Hendrik Menk; Luigi Rigon
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 4.506

6.  How does social integration influence breast cancer control among urban African-American women? Results from a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Ann Carroll Klassen; Carmen Washington
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2008-02-06       Impact factor: 2.809

7.  A healthy mistrust: how worldview relates to attitudes about breast cancer screening in a cross-sectional survey of low-income women.

Authors:  Ann Carroll Klassen; Katherine C Smith; Salma Shariff-Marco; Hee-Soon Juon
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2008-01-31
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.