Literature DB >> 25247383

Understanding patient options, utilization patterns, and burdens associated with breast cancer screening.

Susan C Harvey1, Ashok Vegesna, Sharon Mass, Janice Clarke, Alexandria Skoufalos.   

Abstract

Despite ongoing awareness, educational campaigns, and advances in technology, breast cancer screening remains a complex topic for women and for the health care system. Lack of consensus among organizations developing screening guidelines has caused confusion for patients and providers. The psychosocial factors related to breast cancer screening are not well understood. The prevailing algorithm for screening results in significant rates of patient recall for further diagnostic imaging or procedures, the majority of which rule out breast cancer rather than confirming it. For women, the consequences of the status quo range from unnecessary stress to additional out-of-pocket expenses to indirect costs that are more difficult to quantify. A more thoughtful approach to breast cancer screening, coupled with a research agenda that recognizes the indirect and intangible costs that women bear, is needed to improve cost and quality outcomes in this area.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25247383     DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2014.1510

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  10 in total

1.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 2.  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

3.  Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy.

Authors:  Julie E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Kimberly A Harris; Rachael E Chicoine; Marie B Synnestvedt; Steve J Pyle; Jane S Chen; Sally D Herschorn; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  Reducing colorectal cancer risk among African Americans.

Authors:  Sonia S Kupfer; Rotonya M Carr; John M Carethers
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Automated Breast Ultrasound: Dual-Sided Compared with Single-Sided Imaging.

Authors:  Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchel M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Fouzaan Zafar; Oliver D Kripfgans; Kai Thomenius; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Value analysis of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in a commercially-insured US population.

Authors:  Machaon M Bonafede; Vivek B Kalra; Jeffrey D Miller; Laurie L Fajardo
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2015-01-12

Review 7.  Cancer prevention: state of the art and future prospects.

Authors:  I Valle; D Tramalloni; N L Bragazzi
Journal:  J Prev Med Hyg       Date:  2015-06-10

8.  Empirically Tested Health Literacy Frameworks.

Authors:  Joycelyn Cudjoe; Sabianca Delva; Mia Cajita; Hae-Ra Han
Journal:  Health Lit Res Pract       Date:  2020-02-11

Review 9.  Strategies for reducing out of pocket payments in the health system: a scoping review.

Authors:  Faride Sadat Jalali; Parisa Bikineh; Sajad Delavari
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2021-08-04

Review 10.  Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography.

Authors:  John D Keen; Karsten J Jørgensen
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.681

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.