Vivian M Yeh1, Julie B Schnur2, Laurie Margolies3, Guy H Montgomery2. 1. Integrative Behavioral Medicine Program, Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. Electronic address: vivian.yeh@mssm.edu. 2. Integrative Behavioral Medicine Program, Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore how women respond to the wording of dense breast tissue notifications, which are increasingly required by state law after mammography. The specific aims were to (1) determine whether perceived lifetime risk for breast cancer and intentions to undergo mammography increase after reviewing a sample notification, (2) explore individual difference variables (eg, minority status, insurance coverage) that may influence intentions for additional ultrasound screening, and (3) assess whether anxiety mediates the relationship between perceived risk and screening intentions. METHODS: A total of 184 women aged >40 years in the United States were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk to respond to a dense breast tissue notification as if they had personally received it. RESULTS: After reviewing a notification, women reported greater perceived risk (d = 0.67) and intentions to undergo mammography (d = 0.25) than before. Most women intended to undergo additional ultrasound screening, although to a lesser extent when ultrasound was covered by insurance than when it was not (d = 1.03). All screening intentions were lower in women with ambiguity aversion, a tendency to avoid tests without medical consensus, and those who preferred an active decision-making role. Anxiety mediated the relationship between perceived breast cancer risk and all screening intentions. CONCLUSIONS: Women who receive dense breast tissue notifications may generally increase their breast cancer screening intentions; however, intention strength varies depending on internal (eg, ambiguity aversion) and external (eg, insurance for ultrasound) factors. Although perceived risk increases after notification, it is anxiety that drives women's intentions for future screening.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore how women respond to the wording of dense breast tissue notifications, which are increasingly required by state law after mammography. The specific aims were to (1) determine whether perceived lifetime risk for breast cancer and intentions to undergo mammography increase after reviewing a sample notification, (2) explore individual difference variables (eg, minority status, insurance coverage) that may influence intentions for additional ultrasound screening, and (3) assess whether anxiety mediates the relationship between perceived risk and screening intentions. METHODS: A total of 184 women aged >40 years in the United States were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk to respond to a dense breast tissue notification as if they had personally received it. RESULTS: After reviewing a notification, women reported greater perceived risk (d = 0.67) and intentions to undergo mammography (d = 0.25) than before. Most women intended to undergo additional ultrasound screening, although to a lesser extent when ultrasound was covered by insurance than when it was not (d = 1.03). All screening intentions were lower in women with ambiguity aversion, a tendency to avoid tests without medical consensus, and those who preferred an active decision-making role. Anxiety mediated the relationship between perceived breast cancer risk and all screening intentions. CONCLUSIONS:Women who receive dense breast tissue notifications may generally increase their breast cancer screening intentions; however, intention strength varies depending on internal (eg, ambiguity aversion) and external (eg, insurance for ultrasound) factors. Although perceived risk increases after notification, it is anxiety that drives women's intentions for future screening.
Authors: Elissa R Price; Jonathan Hargreaves; Jafi A Lipson; Edward A Sickles; R James Brenner; Karen K Lindfors; Bonnie N Joe; Jessica W T Leung; Stephen A Feig; Lawrence W Bassett; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Bruce L Daniel; Allison W Kurian; Elyse Love; Lauren Ryan; Donna D Walgenbach; Debra M Ikeda Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Donald Musa; Richard Schulz; Roderick Harris; Myrna Silverman; Stephen B Thomas Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Paul K J Han; Nathan F Dieckmann; Christina Holt; Caitlin Gutheil; Ellen Peters Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Christine Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Timothy Bickmore; Mark Kennedy; Margaret F Hopkins; Michael D C Fishman; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Erica T Warner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rebecca E Smith; Brian Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Karen J Wernli; Tracy Onega; Karen Schifferdecker; Gloria Jackson-Nefertiti; Dianne Johnson; Jill Budesky; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 6.240
Authors: Perrine Créquit; Ghizlène Mansouri; Mehdi Benchoufi; Alexandre Vivot; Philippe Ravaud Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 5.428