Literature DB >> 19170959

Mammography screening from the perspective of quality of life: a review of the literature.

Bjørg Hafslund1, Monica W Nortvedt.   

Abstract

AIMS: The purpose of this literature review was to explore how women attending a national mammography screening programme reacted to the screening process on quality of life (QoL). The research question was what implications regarding true-negative results and false-positive results from mammography screening were found among women? Quality of life including life domains as psychological, physical and social was the theoretical reference in the study.
METHOD: Guided by the concept of QoL on mammography screening a database search of Medline, Cinahl and Cochrane was carried out. Search terms such as QoL, anxiety and mammography have been used.
FINDINGS: A review of studies between 1995 and 2007 showed that the implications regarding a negative result were less than those regarding false-positive one. It was found that women with negative results after mammography screening experience minor negative psychological consequences, and some women have even measured less anxiety following mammography than before because of the reassurance given by a clear negative result. False-positive result and recalls were a problem for many women. The process following recalls do affect women emotionally, decrease their wellbeing and QoL for weeks and even months.
CONCLUSION: Future research should be directed at measuring the short-term outcomes in representative populations for whom screening and prevention are indicated. This knowledge would be useful for the organisation of the mammography programmes and for communication with the general population, the women coming for screening and those who do not attend.
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Nordic College of Caring Science.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19170959     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00634.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Caring Sci        ISSN: 0283-9318


  11 in total

1.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

Authors:  S Mall; J Noakes; M Kossoff; W Lee; M McKessar; A Goy; J Duncombe; M Roberts; B Giuffre; A Miller; N Bhola; C Kapoor; C Shearman; G DaCosta; S Choi; J Sterba; M Kay; K Bruderlin; N Winarta; K Donohue; B Macdonell-Scott; F Klijnsma; K Suzuki; P Brennan; C Mello-Thoms
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings.

Authors:  Glen B Taksler; Nancy L Keating; Michael B Rothberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  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

5.  An abnormal screening mammogram causes more anxiety than a palpable lump in benign breast disease.

Authors:  C M G Keyzer-Dekker; L van Esch; J de Vries; M F Ernst; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; J A Roukema; A F W van der Steeg
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  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

7.  Improving screening recall services for women with false-positive mammograms: a comparison of qualitative evidence with UK guidelines.

Authors:  Mary Bond; Ruth Garside; Christopher Hyde
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Impact of whole-body MRI in a general population study.

Authors:  Carsten Oliver Schmidt; Elizabeth Sierocinski; Katrin Hegenscheid; Sebastian E Baumeister; Hans J Grabe; Henry Völzke
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  European radiographers' challenges from mammography education and clinical practice - an integrative review.

Authors:  Eija Metsälä; Nicole Richli Meystre; José Pires Jorge; Anja Henner; Tiina Kukkes; Cláudia Sá Dos Reis
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2017-03-16

10.  Breast ultrasound: automated or hand-held? Exploring patients' experience and preference.

Authors:  Ilaria Mussetto; Licia Gristina; Simone Schiaffino; Simona Tosto; Edoardo Raviola; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2020-02-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.