Literature DB >> 21874132

A model of the influence of false-positive mammography screening results on subsequent screening.

Jessica T Defrank1, Noel Brewer.   

Abstract

Decades of empirical research have demonstrated psychological and behavioural consequences of false-positive medical tests. To organise this literature and offer novel predictions, we propose a model of how false-positive mammography results affect return for subsequent mammography screening. We propose that false-positive mammography results alter how women think about themselves (e.g., increasing their perceived likelihood of getting breast cancer) and the screening test (e.g., believing mammography test results are less accurate). We further hypothesise that thoughts elicited by the false-positive experience will, in turn, affect future use of screening mammography. In addition, we discuss methodological considerations for statistical analyses of these mediational pathways and propose two classes of potential moderators. While our model focuses on mammography screening, it may be applicable to psychological and behavioural responses to other screening tests. The model is especially timely as false-positive medical test results are increasingly common, due to efforts to increase uptake of cancer screening, new technologies that improve existing tests' ability to detect disease at the cost of increased false alarms, and growing numbers of new medical tests.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 21874132      PMCID: PMC3160720          DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2010.500482

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Psychol Rev        ISSN: 1743-7199


  69 in total

1.  Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening.

Authors:  C Lampic; E Thurfjell; J Bergh; P O Sjödén
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Screening mammography behavior after a false positive mammogram.

Authors:  E D Pisano; J A Earp; T L Gallant
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  1998

3.  Measuring sustained mammography use by urban African-American women.

Authors:  Amanda L Greene; Celeste M Torio; Ann C Klassen
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2005-08

4.  Comparison of tailored interventions to increase mammography screening in nonadherent older women.

Authors:  Victoria Champion; Maltie Maraj; Siu Hui; Anthony J Perkins; William Tierney; Usha Menon; Celette Sugg Skinner
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  The impact of abnormal mammograms on psychosocial outcomes and subsequent screening.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; S Halabi; T S Strigo; B K Rimer
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.894

6.  Breast cancer worry and mammography use by women with and without a family history in a population-based sample.

Authors:  M Robyn Andersen; Robert Smith; H Meischke; D Bowen; N Urban
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Adverse psychologic consequences of positive cytologic cervical screening.

Authors:  C Lerman; S M Miller; R Scarborough; P Hanjani; S Nolte; D Smith
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 8.  Fear, anxiety, worry, and breast cancer screening behavior: a critical review.

Authors:  Nathan S Consedine; Carol Magai; Yulia S Krivoshekova; Lynn Ryzewicz; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial.

Authors:  Mary B Barton; Debra S Morley; Sara Moore; Jennifer D Allen; Ken P Kleinman; Karen M Emmons; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-04-07       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  A I Mushlin; R W Kouides; D E Shapiro
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.043

View more
  10 in total

1.  Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Barbara S Monsees; Edward A Sickles; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

Review 5.  Psychological distress associated with cancer screening: A systematic review.

Authors:  Emma Chad-Friedman; Sarah Coleman; Lara N Traeger; William F Pirl; Roberta Goldman; Steven J Atlas; Elyse R Park
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Some more evidence of long-term psychosocial harms from receiving false-positive screening mammography results.

Authors:  Jessica DeFrank; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Evid Based Med       Date:  2013-08-20

7.  "I want to save my life": Conceptions of cervical and breast cancer screening among urban immigrant women of South Asian and Chinese origin.

Authors:  Jennifer Hulme; Catherine Moravac; Farah Ahmad; Shelley Cleverly; Aisha Lofters; Ophira Ginsburg; Sheila Dunn
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Quantitative STAU2 measurement in lymphocytes for breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Charoenchai Puttipanyalears; Sikrit Denariyakoon; Phonthep Angsuwatcharakon; Vitavat Aksornkitti; Mawin Vongsaisuwan; Sutasinee Asayut; Somchai Thanasitthichai; Narisorn Kongruttanachok; Chatchawit Aporntewan; Apiwat Mutirangura
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  The Effect of False-Positive Results on Subsequent Participation in Chest X-ray Screening for Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Akira Sato; Shota Hamada; Yuki Urashima; Shiro Tanaka; Hiroaki Okamoto; Koji Kawakami
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-07-02       Impact factor: 3.211

10.  Perspective on Cancer Therapeutics Utilizing Analysis of Circulating Tumor Cells.

Authors:  Keun-Yeong Jeong; Eun Kyung Kim; Min Hee Park; Hwan Mook Kim
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-11
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.