Literature DB >> 16390511

The relation between projected breast cancer risk, perceived cancer risk, and mammography use. Results from the National Health Interview Survey.

C P Gross1, G Filardo, H S Singh, A N Freedman, M H Farrell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the use of mammography on at regular intervals can save lives, not all women obtain the repeat mammography recommended in guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the associations between routine mammography use, perceived cancer risk, and actual projected cancer risk.
METHODS: We include women who were 45 to 75 years of age and who had responded to the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Women who reported that they believed their risk of getting cancer in the future was "medium" or "high" were considered jointly as "medium/high-risk perception.""Routine mammography use" was defined as having > or =3 mammograms in the previous 6 years. We used logistic regression to determine the independent relation between cancer risk perception, projected breast cancer risk, and routine mammography use.
RESULTS: Of the 6,002 women who met our inclusion criteria, 63.1% reported routine mammography use. About 76% of women in the highest quartile of projected breast cancer risk reported routine mammography use, compared with only 68%, 64%, and 51% in the third, second, and first quartiles, respectively (P<.001 chi-square test for trend). After adjusting for indicators of access to care, sociodemographic and behavioral factors, and perceived cancer risk, women in the highest quartiles of projected cancer risk were significantly more likely to report routine mammogram use than women in the lowest quartile (odds ratio [OR] of women in third and fourth quartiles were 1.57 [1.24 to 1.99], and 2.23 [1.73 to 2.87] vs the lowest quartile, respectively). Women with a higher perceived cancer risk were significantly more likely to undergo routine mammography (adjusted OR: 1.29 [1.12 to 1.48] P=.001). Cancer risk perceptions tended to be higher among women who were younger age, obese, smokers, depressed, or reported one of the following breast cancer risk factors: family breast cancer history, prior abnormal mammogram, and early age at menarche.
CONCLUSION: Actual and perceived risk were independent predictors of routine mammography use, suggesting that efforts to incorporate risk profiles into clinical decision making may need to involve more than just relaying information about projected risks to patients, but also to explore how risk perceptions can be affected by this information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16390511      PMCID: PMC1484644          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00312.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  37 in total

1.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Debbie Saslow; Kimberly Andrews Sawyer; Wylie Burke; Mary E Costanza; W Phil Evans; Roger S Foster; Edward Hendrick; Harmon J Eyre; Steven Sener
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Prevalence and correlates of repeat mammography among women aged 55-79 in the Year 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  William Rakowski; Nancy Breen; Helen Meissner; Barbara K Rimer; Sally W Vernon; Melissa A Clark; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Differences in rates of cancer screening by usual source of medical care. Data from the 1987 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  A B Bernstein; G B Thompson; L C Harlan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 4.  Risk assessment and management of high risk familial breast cancer.

Authors:  D G R Evans; F Lalloo
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.318

5.  Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Judith Swan; Nancy Breen; Ralph J Coates; Barbara K Rimer; Nancy C Lee
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Younger women at increased risk for breast cancer: perceived risk, psychological well-being, and surveillance behavior.

Authors:  C Lerman; K Kash; M Stefanek
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1994

7.  What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and mammography screening? A meta-analytic review.

Authors:  K D McCaul; A D Branstetter; D M Schroeder; R E Glasgow
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 4.267

8.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Breast carcinoma screening and risk perception among women at increased risk for breast carcinoma: results from a national survey.

Authors:  Susan A Sabatino; Risa B Burns; Roger B Davis; Russell S Phillips; Ya-Hua Chen; Ellen P McCarthy
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception in women with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  D G Evans; V Blair; R Greenhalgh; P Hopwood; A Howell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  15 in total

1.  Changes in breast cancer risk distribution among Vermont women using screening mammography.

Authors:  Kenyon C Bolton; John L Mace; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta M Geller; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  "Don't know" and accuracy of breast cancer risk perceptions among Appalachian women attending a mobile mammography program: implications for educational interventions and patient empowerment.

Authors:  Traci LeMasters; Suresh Madhavan; Elvonna Atkins; Ami Vyas; Scot Remick; Linda Vona-Davis
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Variation in Breast Cancer-Risk Factor Associations by Method of Detection: Results From a Series of Case-Control Studies.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Kathleen M Egan; Linda J Titus; Karla Kerlikowske; Patrick L Remington; Polly A Newcomb; Amy Trentham-Dietz
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Psychological Outcomes After a False Positive Mammogram: Preliminary Evidence for Ethnic Differences Across Time.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Shirley A A Beresford; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2016-02-19

5.  Effects of a risk-based online mammography intervention on accuracy of perceived risk and mammography intentions.

Authors:  Holli H Seitz; Laura Gibson; Christine Skubisz; Heather Forquer; Susan Mello; Marilyn M Schapira; Katrina Armstrong; Joseph N Cappella
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-05-04

6.  Language use and the receipt of cancer screening recommendations by immigrant Chinese American women.

Authors:  Wenchi Liang; Judy H Wang; Mei-Yuh Chen; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Prospective study of factors predicting adherence to surveillance mammography in women treated for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rebecca A Shelby; Cindy D Scipio; Tamara J Somers; Mary Scott Soo; Kevin P Weinfurt; Francis J Keefe
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Explaining the effects of a decision intervention on mammography intentions: The roles of worry, fear and perceived susceptibility to breast cancer.

Authors:  Holli H Seitz; Marilyn M Schapira; Laura A Gibson; Christine Skubisz; Susan Mello; Katrina Armstrong; Joseph N Cappella
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2017-10-26

9.  Factors associated with breast cancer prevention communication between mothers and daughters.

Authors:  Pamela S Sinicrope; Tabetha A Brockman; Christi A Patten; Marlene H Frost; Robert A Vierkant; Larra R Petersen; Emily Rock; Lara P Clark; Celine M Vachon; Zachary S Fredericksen; Thomas A Sellers; James R Cerhan
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Access to mammography screening in a large urban population: a multi-level analysis.

Authors:  Stephen C Meersman; Nancy Breen; Linda W Pickle; Helen I Meissner; Paul Simon
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-06-20       Impact factor: 2.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.