Literature DB >> 26896036

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

Yamile Molina1,2, Shirley A A Beresford3,4, Beti Thompson3,4.   

Abstract

Adverse psychological consequences of screening mammography are well-documented for women who receive a false positive result. However, little is known about ethnic differences. To address this gap, we examine distress associated with an abnormal mammogram (results-related distress) and perceived lifetime risk of breast cancer (perceived risk) among Latinas and non-Latina White (NLW) women 3 months after receipt of a false positive result. A sample of 28 Latina and 27 NLW women who received an initial abnormal mammogram result and later, a definitive non-cancer diagnosis were recruited for this descriptive, longitudinal study. Women were interviewed twice: within 30 days and 3 months after a false positive result. Questionnaires included standard sociodemographic questions, the Impact of Events Scale-Revised, and two perceived breast cancer risk items. All participants experienced decreased distress 3 months after the initial results. Latinas experienced higher levels of distress, F(1,45) = 4.58, p = 0.04, and had a significant increase in perceived breast cancer risk over time, F(1,45) = 3.99, p = 0.05. Larger population-based studies are necessary to confirm ethnic differences in mental health consequences of false positive results. Given cultural emphases concerning respect for authority figures, healthcare professionals may be particularly helpful in working with Latinas to mitigate distress and clarify accurate perceptions of breast cancer risk through evidence-based practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abnormal mammogram; Breast cancer; Distress; Latinas; Risk

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26896036      PMCID: PMC4991952          DOI: 10.1007/s40615-016-0209-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities        ISSN: 2196-8837


  63 in total

1.  The relation between projected breast cancer risk, perceived cancer risk, and mammography use. Results from the National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  C P Gross; G Filardo; H S Singh; A N Freedman; M H Farrell
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-12-22       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Conversations about Abnormal Mammograms on Distress and Timely Follow-up Across Ethnicity.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Shirley A A Beresford; Tara Hayes Constant; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  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

5.  Perceived cancer risk: why is it lower among nonwhites than whites?

Authors:  Heather Orom; Marc T Kiviniemi; Willie Underwood; Levi Ross; Vickie L Shavers
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Missed opportunities: racial disparities in adjuvant breast cancer treatment.

Authors:  Nina A Bickell; Jason J Wang; Soji Oluwole; Deborah Schrag; Henry Godfrey; Karen Hiotis; Jane Mendez; Amber A Guth
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-03-20       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Dirk Siersma
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Overuse of mammography during the first round of an organized breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Eric Chamot; Agathe Charvet; Thomas V Perneger
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  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

10.  Making sense of Cronbach's alpha.

Authors:  Mohsen Tavakol; Reg Dennick
Journal:  Int J Med Educ       Date:  2011-06-27
View more
  3 in total

1.  Quality of Informed Consent in Mammography Screening-The Polish Experience.

Authors:  Anna Zagaja; Renata Bogusz; Jarosław Sak; Michał Wiechetek; Jakub Pawlikowski
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 4.614

2.  Prenatal electrocardiogram testing and postpartum depression: A population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Jonathan S Zipursky; Deva Thiruchelvam; Donald A Redelmeier
Journal:  Obstet Med       Date:  2021-06-03

Review 3.  Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Authors:  Ernest Usang Ekpo; Maram Alakhras; Patrick Brennan
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-02-26
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.