Literature DB >> 2003712

Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms.

C Lerman1, B Trock, B K Rimer, A Boyce, C Jepson, P F Engstrom.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate women's psychological responses to abnormal mammograms and the effect on mammography adherence. To identify psychological responses and other factors that predict mammography adherence in women with normal or abnormal mammograms.
DESIGN: Survey study with prospective analysis of factors associated with mammography adherence.
SETTING: Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania and New Jersey (HMO PA/NJ). PATIENTS: Study patients, members of HMO PA/NJ who were 50 years of age or older, and who had had mammography done 3 months earlier, included women with normal mammograms (n = 121), women with low-suspicion mammograms (n = 119), and women with high-suspicion mammograms (n = 68), but not women with breast cancer. MEASUREMENTS: Psychological responses 3 months after mammography and adherence to subsequent annual mammography were assessed. MAIN
RESULTS: Women with high-suspicion mammograms had substantial mammography-related anxiety (47%) and worries about breast cancer (41%). Such worries affected the moods (26%) and daily functioning (17%) of these women, despite diagnostic evaluation excluding malignancy. For each variable, a consistent trend (P greater than 0.05) was seen with degree of mammogram abnormality. Sixty-eight percent of women with normal results, 78% of women with low-suspicion results, and 74% of women with high-suspicion results obtained their subsequent annual mammograms (P greater than 0.05). The number of previous mammograms (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.6 to 6.2) and the effect of the previous results on concerns about breast cancer (odds ratio, 0.5; CI, 0.2 to 1.0) were independent predictors of adherence in logistic regression analyses (P less than 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of women with suspicious mammograms have psychological difficulties, even after learning that they do not have cancer. Such sequelae do not appear to interfere with subsequent adherence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2003712     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-114-8-657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  121 in total

Review 1.  Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Ringash
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Improving the time to diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Authors:  I A Olivotto; M J Borugian; L Kan; S R Harris; E J Rousseau; S E Thorne; J A Vestrup; C J Wright; A J Coldman; T G Hislop
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct

3.  Breast cancer screening: can we talk?

Authors:  R G Miller
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Waiting for a diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram. SMPBC diagnostic process workgroup. Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia.

Authors:  I A Olivotto; L Kan; S King
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr

6.  Predictors of returning for second round screening at a population based mammographic screening programme in Melbourne, Australia.

Authors:  J Cockburn; P Schofield; V White; D Hill; I Russell
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore; Linn A Abraham; Martha S Gerrity; R Edward Hendrick; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; Gary R Cutter; Steven P Poplack; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Cognitive processing variables in breast cancer: worry and distress at the end of treatment.

Authors:  Gema Costa-Requena; Ana Rodríguez; Rosina Fernández; Elisabet Palomera; Francisco L Gil
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.037

10.  Health beliefs associated with readiness for genetic counseling among high risk breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Maija Reblin; Monica L Kasting; Kelli Nam; Courtney L Scherr; Jongphil Kim; Ram Thapa; Cathy D Meade; M Catherine Lee; Tuya Pal; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 2.431

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.