Literature DB >> 22438505

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

Jessica T DeFrank1, Barbara K Rimer, J Michael Bowling, Jo Anne Earp, Erica S Breslau, Noel T Brewer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cancer screening guidelines often include discussion about the unintended negative consequences of routine screening. This prospective study examined effects of false-positive mammography results on women's adherence to subsequent breast cancer screening and psychological well-being. We also assessed whether barriers to screening exacerbated the effects of false-positive results.
METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of data from telephone interviews and medical claims records for 2406 insured women. The primary outcome was adherence to screening guidelines, defined as adherent (10-14 months), delayed (15-34 months), or no subsequent mammogram on record.
RESULTS: About 8% of women reported that their most recent screening mammograms produced false-positive results. In the absence of self-reported advice from their physicians to be screened, women were more likely to have no subsequent mammograms on record if they received false-positive results than if they received normal results (18% vs. 7%, OR = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.30, 7.70). Receipt of false-positive results was not associated with this outcome for women who said their physicians had advised regular screening in the past year (7% vs. 10%, OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.38, 1.45). False-positive results were associated with greater breast cancer worry (P < .01), thinking more about the benefits of screening (P < .001), and belief that abnormal test results do not mean women have cancer (P < .01), regardless of physicians' screening recommendations.
CONCLUSION: False-positive mammography results, coupled with reports that women's physicians did not advise regular screening, could lead to non-adherence to future screening. Abnormal mammograms that do not result in cancer diagnoses are opportunities for physicians to stress the importance of regular screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22438505      PMCID: PMC5835966          DOI: 10.1258/jms.2012.011123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  37 in total

1.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Debbie Saslow; Kimberly Andrews Sawyer; Wylie Burke; Mary E Costanza; W Phil Evans; Roger S Foster; Edward Hendrick; Harmon J Eyre; Steven Sener
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Compliance with the screening mammography program of British Columbia: will she return?

Authors:  M M Johnson; T G Hislop; L Kan; A J Coldman; A Lai
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  1996 May-Jun

3.  Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert A Smith
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  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

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.  Update on mammography trends: comparisons of rates in 2000, 2005, and 2008.

Authors:  Nancy Breen; Jane F Gentleman; Jeannine S Schiller
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: re-attendance related to the women's experiences, intentions and previous screening result.

Authors:  Solveig S H Hofvind; Hege Wang; Steinar Thoresen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.506

8.  False-positive result and reattendance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  A M Chiarelli; V Moravan; E Halapy; V Majpruz; V Mai; R K Tatla
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.136

9.  The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Steinar Thoresen; Steinar Tretli
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results.

Authors:  Leah S Karliner; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Teresa Juarbe; Rena Pasick; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  10 in total

1.  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

2.  Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Firas M Dabbous; Therese A Dolecek; Michael L Berbaum; Sarah M Friedewald; Wm Thomas Summerfelt; Kent Hoskins; Garth H Rauscher
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  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

4.  Primary care visit use after positive fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Christopher D Jensen; Wei K Zhao; Alfred I Neugut; Benjamin Lebwohl; Jasmin A Tiro; Lawrence H Kushi; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Psychological Outcomes After a False Positive Mammogram: Preliminary Evidence for Ethnic Differences Across Time.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Shirley A A Beresford; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2016-02-19

6.  Discussions of Potential Mammography Benefits and Harms among Patients with Limited Health Literacy and Providers: "Oh, There are Harms?"

Authors:  Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia; Christine M Gunn
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2021-01-17

Review 7.  The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate.

Authors:  Laura J Esserman
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-09-13

8.  Subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program after a false-positive result in the Local Health Authority of Bologna (Italy).

Authors:  Lorena Squillace; Lorenzo Pizzi; Flavia Rallo; Carmen Bazzani; Gianni Saguatti; Francesca Mezzetti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Engaging Women with Limited Health Literacy in Mammography Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients and Primary Care Providers.

Authors:  Christine M Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Cost- Effectiveness of Mammography Screening Program in a Resource-Limited Post-Soviet Country of Kazakhstan.

Authors:  Islam Salikhanov; Byron Crape; Peter Howie
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-10-01
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.