Literature DB >> 20882572

Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes.

Talya Salz1, Alice R Richman, Noel T Brewer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: While a previous meta-analysis found that false-positive mammography results affect women's likelihood of returning for screening, effects on well being have yet to be meta-analyzed. We investigated whether the effects of false-positive mammograms on women's well-being are limited to outcomes specific to breast cancer.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for studies of the psychosocial effects of false-positive results of routine screening mammography. We pooled effect sizes using random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Across 17 studies (n=20781), receiving a false-positive mammogram the result was associated with differences in all eight breast-cancer-specific outcomes that we examined. These included greater anxiety and distress about breast cancer as well as more frequent breast self-exams and higher perceived effectiveness of screening mammography. False positives were associated with only one of six generic outcomes (i.e. generalized anxiety), and this effect size was small.
CONCLUSIONS: False-positive mammograms influenced women's well-being, but the effects were limited to breast-cancer-specific outcomes. Researchers should include disease-specific measures in future studies of the consequences of false-positive mammograms.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20882572     DOI: 10.1002/pon.1676

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  42 in total

1.  Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years.

Authors:  Marcello Tonelli; Sarah Connor Gorber; Michel Joffres; James Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Gabriela Lewin; Richard Birtwhistle; Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis; Nicole Hodgson; Donna Ciliska; Mary Gauld; Yan Yun Liu
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Psychological distress, social withdrawal, and coping following receipt of an abnormal mammogram among different ethnicities: a mediation model.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Shirley A A Beresford; Noah Espinoza; Beti Thompson
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 3.  The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need.

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Colleen Barclay; Stacey Sheridan; Noel T Brewer; Meredith Gilliam; Andrew M Moon; William Rearick; Carolyn Ziemer; Russell Harris
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Perspectives on mammography after receipt of secondary screening owing to a false positive.

Authors:  Maria D Thomson; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2015-01-31

5.  Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Cristina S Hammond; Lucy G Hanna; Margaret R Grove; Mary Brown; Qianfei Wang; Karen Lindfors; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 6.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  False positive mammograms in Europe: do they affect reattendance?

Authors:  Talya Salz; Jessica T DeFrank; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Barbara K Rimer; J Michael Bowling; Jo Anne Earp; Erica S Breslau; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.136

9.  Communicating Numerical Risk: Human Factors That Aid Understanding in Health Care.

Authors:  Priscila G Brust-Renck; Caisa E Royer; Valerie F Reyna
Journal:  Rev Hum Factors Ergon       Date:  2013-10

10.  Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families.

Authors:  Christelle Duprez; Véronique Christophe; Isabelle Milhabet; Aurélie Krzeminski; Claude Adenis; Pascaline Berthet; Jean-Philippe Peyrat; Philippe Vennin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.