Literature DB >> 1739156

Cancer anxiety and attitudes toward mammography among screening attenders, nonattenders, and women never invited.

I T Gram1, S E Slenker.   

Abstract

A mailed questionnaire survey was conducted among the following groups: 179 women who screened false positive at a free mammography screening; a random sample of 250 women who screened negative; 670 nonattenders of the screening; and a random population sample of 250 women who lived in another city and were not invited, but were otherwise comparable. The most frequently reported reason for nonattendance was not having the opportunity. Furthermore, only 18% of the nonattenders reported anxiety about breast cancer compared with 33% of the population sample (P less than .05). Ninety-nine percent of the women who attended indicated a positive attitude toward mammography that had not been adversely affected by screening experiences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1739156      PMCID: PMC1694295          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.82.2.249

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  22 in total

1.  A case-control study of the efficacy of a non-randomized breast cancer screening program in Florence (Italy).

Authors:  D Palli; M R Del Turco; E Buiatti; S Carli; S Ciatto; L Toscani; G Maltoni
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1986-10-15       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  False alarms of breast cancer.

Authors:  J E Devitt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1989-11-25       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  The debate over mass mammography in Britain. The case against.

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-10-15

Review 4.  False premises and false promises of breast cancer screening.

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-08-10       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality.

Authors:  S Shapiro; W Venet; P Strax; L Venet; R Roeser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Level of education, use of oral contraceptives and reproductive factors: the Tromsø Study.

Authors:  B K Jacobsen; E Lund
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit.

Authors:  L Tabar; G Fagerberg; S W Duffy; N E Day
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 3.710

8.  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

9.  The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years.

Authors:  D M Eddy; V Hasselblad; W McGivney; W Hendee
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1988-03-11       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Psychiatric morbidity associated with screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  R Ellman; N Angeli; A Christians; S Moss; J Chamberlain; P Maguire
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  15 in total

1.  Psychological impact of breast cancer screening in Japan.

Authors:  Atsuko Kitano; Hideko Yamauchi; Takashi Hosaka; Hiroshi Yagata; Keiko Hosokawa; Sachiko Ohde; Seigo Nakamura; Masafumi Takimoto; Hiroko Tsunoda
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  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

3.  The effects of organized screening programs on the demand for mammography in Switzerland.

Authors:  Mark Pletscher
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-11-08

4.  Breast and ovarian cancer screening of non-carriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families: 2-year follow-up of cohorts from France and Quebec.

Authors:  Michel Dorval; Catherine Noguès; Pascaline Berthet; Jocelyne Chiquette; Marion Gauthier-Villars; Christine Lasset; Claude Picard; Marie Plante; Jacques Simard; Claire Julian-Reynier
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 5.  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

6.  Mammographic screening for breast cancer: background of a pilot program in the Canton of Vaud.

Authors:  F Paccaud
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  1993

7.  The effect of immediate reading of screening mammograms on medical care utilization and costs after false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  Kate A Stewart; Peter J Neumann; Suzanne W Fletcher; Mary B Barton
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  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

9.  Efficacy of a web-based intelligent tutoring system for communicating genetic risk of breast cancer: a fuzzy-trace theory approach.

Authors:  Christopher R Wolfe; Valerie F Reyna; Colin L Widmer; Elizabeth M Cedillos; Christopher R Fisher; Priscila G Brust-Renck; Audrey M Weil
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Online support: Impact on anxiety in women who experience an abnormal screening mammogram.

Authors:  Eniola T Obadina; Lori L Dubenske; Helene E McDowell; Amy K Atwood; Deborah K Mayer; Ryan W Woods; David H Gustafson; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 4.380

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.