Literature DB >> 23540978

Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

M Bond1, T Pavey, K Welch, C Cooper, R Garside, S Dean, C Hyde.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the UK, women aged 50-73 years are invited for screening by mammography every 3 years. In 2009-10, more than 2.24 million women in this age group in England were invited to take part in the programme, of whom 73% attended a screening clinic. Of these, 64,104 women were recalled for assessment. Of those recalled, 81% did not have breast cancer; these women are described as having a false-positive mammogram.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify the psychological impact on women of false-positive screening mammograms and any evidence for the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce this impact. We were also looking for evidence of effects in subgroups of women. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CRD Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Cochrane Methodology, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Conference Proceeding Citation Index-Social Science and Humanities, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Sociological Abstracts, the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, the British Library's Electronic Table of Contents and others. Initial searches were carried out between 8 October 2010 and 25 January 2011. Update searches were carried out on 26 October 2011 and 23 March 2012. REVIEW
METHODS: Based on the inclusion criteria, titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers. Retrieved papers were reviewed and selected using the same independent process. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Each included study was assessed for risk of bias.
RESULTS: Eleven studies were found from 4423 titles and abstracts. Studies that used disease-specific measures found a negative psychological impact lasting up to 3 years. Distress increased with the level of invasiveness of the assessment procedure. Studies using instruments designed to detect clinical levels of morbidity did not find this effect. Women with false-positive mammograms were less likely to return for the next round of screening [relative risk (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 0.98] than those with normal mammograms, were more likely to have interval cancer [odds ratio (OR) 3.19 (95% CI 2.34 to 4.35)] and were more likely to have cancer detected at the next screening round [OR 2.15 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.98)]. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited to UK research and by the robustness of the included studies, which frequently failed to report quality indicators, for example failure to consider the risk of bias or confounding, or failure to report participants' demographic characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the experience of having a false-positive screening mammogram can cause breast cancer-specific psychological distress that may endure for up to 3 years, and reduce the likelihood that women will return for their next round of mammography screening. These results should be treated cautiously owing to inherent weakness of observational designs and weaknesses in reporting. Future research should include a qualitative interview study and observational studies that compare generic and disease-specific measures, collect demographic data and include women from different social and ethnic groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23540978      PMCID: PMC4781086          DOI: 10.3310/hta17130

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  54 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.

Authors:  Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Gerard J den Heeten; Luc J A Strobbe; Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Anatomical and/or pathological predictors for the "incorrect" classification of red dot markers on wrist radiographs taken following trauma.

Authors:  R Kranz; P Cosson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 5.  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

6.  Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance.

Authors:  Sarah K Macklin; Jessica L Jackson; Paldeep S Atwal; Stephanie L Hines
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  How Beneficial is Follow-Up Mammography in Elderly Breast Cancer Survivors?

Authors:  Kristen P Massimino; Maxine S Jochelson; Imelda E Burgan; Michelle Stempel; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.

Authors:  Margarita C Posso; Teresa Puig; Ma Jesus Quintana; Judit Solà-Roca; Xavier Bonfill
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.