Literature DB >> 7650466

Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England.

S Sutton1, G Saidi, G Bickler, J Hunter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether mammography raises anxiety in routinely screened women who receive a negative result.
DESIGN: Prospective design in which women completed questionnaires at three key points in the breast screening process: at baseline (before being sent their invitation for breast screening), at the screening clinic immediately before or after screening, and at follow up, about nine months after baseline. Information was obtained from non-attenders as well as from attenders.
SETTING: Bromley District Health Authority, served by the South East London Breast Screening Service. PARTICIPANTS: Two overlapping samples were used. Sample A comprised 1500 women aged 50-64 who were due to be called for first round screening at a mobile screening unit. Altogether 1021 (68%) returned a usable questionnaire and 795 of these (78%) also provided adequate information at nine month follow up: there were 695 attenders (including 24 women who received false positive results) and 100 non-attenders. Sample B consisted of 868 women who attended the screening unit in a three month period, 732 (84%) of whom provided adequate data. A total of 306 attenders (including 10 who received false positive results) occurred in both samples and provided adequate information on all occasions. The main analyses were based on these 306 women plus the 100 non-attenders. The analysis of retrospective anxiety took advantage of the larger sample size of 695 attenders. MAIN
RESULTS: On average, the women were not unduly anxious at any of the three points in the screening process. Among attenders, there was no difference between anxiety levels immediately before and immediately after screening. Anxiety was lowest at the clinic and highest at baseline but the changes were very small in absolute terms. Anxiety did not predict attendance: there were no differences in anxiety levels between attenders and non-attenders at baseline. As expected, women who received false positive results recalled feeling extremely anxious after they had received the referral letter but their retrospective anxiety was also higher than in the negative screenees at earlier stages in the breast screening process. They also reported having experienced more pain and discomfort during the x ray.
CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety does not seem to be an important problem in routinely screened women who receive a negative result. This finding is very reassuring in relation to a major criticism of breast screening programmes. Thus, apart from maintaining current procedures such as keeping waiting times to a minimum, there seems to be no need to introduce special anxiety reducing interventions into the national programme. On the other hand, the findings for women who received false positive results suggest that there are aspects of the experience of being recalled for assessment after an abnormal mammogram that warrant further attention. The relationship between contemporaneous and retrospective anxiety should also be studied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7650466      PMCID: PMC1060131          DOI: 10.1136/jech.49.4.413

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  16 in total

1.  Assessment of the psychological impact of a breast screening programme.

Authors:  A R Bull; M J Campbell
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Screening in practice: Reducing the psychological costs.

Authors:  T M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-07-07

Review 3.  The epidemiology of mass breast cancer screening--a plea for a valid measure of benefit.

Authors:  J G Schmidt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Psychological costs of screening.

Authors:  T M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-08-26

5.  Breast screening: time for a rethink?

Authors:  M M Roberts
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-11-04

6.  Psychiatric morbidity after screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  C Dean; M M Roberts; K French; S Robinson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 3.710

7.  Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Trock; B K Rimer; A Boyce; C Jepson; P F Engstrom
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Prospective study of predictors of attendance for breast screening in inner London.

Authors:  S Sutton; G Bickler; J Sancho-Aldridge; G Saidi
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Psychiatric morbidity associated with screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  R Ellman; N Angeli; A Christians; S Moss; J Chamberlain; P Maguire
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Quality of life following a false positive mammogram.

Authors:  I T Gram; E Lund; S E Slenker
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Ringash
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Lucia Mirea; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Linda Rabeneck; Derek Muradali
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-17

4.  Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits.

Authors:  M B Barton; S Moore; S Polk; E Shtatland; J G Elmore; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Distressed or relieved? Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening in The Netherlands.

Authors:  W Scaf-Klomp; R Sanderman; H B van de Wiel; R Otter; W J van den Heuvel
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  US women's attitudes to false-positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-11

7.  CT scan screening is associated with increased distress among subjects of the APExS.

Authors:  Christophe Paris; Marion Maurel; Amandine Luc; Audrey Stoufflet; Jean-Claude Pairon; Marc Letourneux
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Quality of life valuations of mammography screening.

Authors:  Amy E Bonomi; Denise M Boudreau; Paul A Fishman; Evette Ludman; Amy Mohelnitzky; Elizabeth A Cannon; Deb Seger
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Relationship between anxiety level and radiological investigation. Comparison among different diagnostic imaging exams in a prospective single-center study.

Authors:  Giuseppe Lo Re; Rossella De Luca; Filippa Muscarneri; Patrizia Dorangricchia; Dario Picone; Federica Vernuccio; Sergio Salerno; Giuseppe La Tona; Antonio Pinto; Massimo Midiri; Antonio Russo; Roberto Lagalla; Giuseppe Cicero
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  The effect of immediate reading of screening mammograms on medical care utilization and costs after false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  Kate A Stewart; Peter J Neumann; Suzanne W Fletcher; Mary B Barton
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.