Literature DB >> 19034808

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

John Brodersen1, Hanne Thorsen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to translate and adapt both the negative and positive items of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ) into Danish and to test the translated version for comprehension, suitability, and content coverage by developing new items in a setting of false-positive screening mammography.
DESIGN: The translation was carried out following an internationally accepted method involving two panels: bilingual and lay.
SUBJECTS: The suitability and the content coverage of the PCQ were tested in six group interviews. Participants in the interviews were women who had had a false-positive screening mammography. They were grouped according to additional examinations they experienced following abnormal screening mammography. The audio-recordings from the group interviews were thematically analysed to identify the key consequences of abnormal and false-positive screening mammography.
RESULTS: Fifteen new items were generated to cover the negative psychosocial consequences of abnormal and false-positive screening mammography comprehensively. Five new items were produced that concerned the consequences of screening mammography during the period after being declared "free from" suspicion of cancer. Three items from the PCQ were deleted because they were judged by interviewees to be irrelevant. Response options for the positive items were changed to allow responses in both positive and negative directions.
CONCLUSION: Because of the major changes to both parts of the PCQ the measure derived from this study should be regarded as a new questionnaire with two parts: Consequences Of Screening in Breast Cancer (COS-BC). Part II focuses on the long-term consequences of a false-positive screening mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19034808      PMCID: PMC3406644          DOI: 10.1080/02813430802542508

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care        ISSN: 0281-3432            Impact factor:   2.581


  17 in total

Review 1.  Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods.

Authors:  Debbie Collins
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Requirements for quality of life instruments in clinical research.

Authors:  Lynda C Doward; David M Meads; Hanne Thorsen
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  The translation and cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  Stephen P McKenna; Lynda C Doward
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Qualitative methods used for effect studies and evaluations of healthcare strategies?

Authors:  Annelli Sandbaek
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.581

5.  Validation of a condition-specific measure for women having an abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Hanne Thorsen; Svend Kreiner
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 6.  Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials.

Authors:  Catherine Acquadro; Katrin Conway; Asha Hareendran; Neil Aaronson
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007-12-18       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Psychologic distress in women with abnormal findings in mass mammography screening.

Authors:  J B Lowe; K P Balanda; C Del Mar; E Hawes
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1999-03-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  P C Gøtzsche; M Nielsen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

9.  Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance.

Authors:  J Brett; J Austoker
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  2001-12

Review 10.  The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Hanne Thorsen; Jill Cockburn
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  23 in total

1.  Informed participation in cancer screening: the facts are changing, and GPs are going to feel it.

Authors:  Linn Getz; John Brodersen
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.581

2.  Diagnostic invasiveness and psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography.

Authors:  Bruno Heleno; Volkert Dirk Siersma; John Brodersen
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Waiting time and the psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography: cohort study.

Authors:  Bruno Heleno; Volkert Siersma; John Brodersen
Journal:  J Negat Results Biomed       Date:  2015-04-30

8.  How to conduct research on overdiagnosis. A keynote paper from the EGPRN May 2016, Tel Aviv.

Authors:  John Brodersen
Journal:  Eur J Gen Pract       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.904

9.  Preconceptions influence women's perceptions of information on breast cancer screening: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen; Ann Dorrit Guassora; John Brodersen
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-09-03

10.  The effect of information about overdetection of breast cancer on women's decision-making about mammography screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jolyn Hersch; Alexandra Barratt; Jesse Jansen; Nehmat Houssami; Les Irwig; Gemma Jacklyn; Haryana Dhillon; Hazel Thornton; Kevin McGeechan; Kirsten Howard; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.