Literature DB >> 9368874

Breast screening: adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre study.

G Ong1, J Austoker, J Brett.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It was the original intention of the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) to place women who were not diagnosed with cancer on three yearly routine recall (RR). In 1994-5 approximately 16,500 women, aged 50 to 64, were placed on early recall (ER) at a shorter time interval, of which about 98% will have a normal result. This large number exceeds the expectations of the NHSBSP.
OBJECTIVE: To establish the adverse psychological consequences (PCs) for women one month after placement on ER because of a diagnostic uncertainty, and if detected, to suggest practical solutions to reduce them.
METHODS: Thirteen breast screening centres throughout the UK participated in the study. From March to October 1995 all women who were placed on ER because of a diagnostic uncertainty were identified and compared with groups of women placed on RR (after mammography, assessment, fine needle aspiration, and a benign biopsy). These women were invited to complete a postal questionnaire one month after they were placed on ER or RR. One reminder was sent.
RESULTS: Overall 75% of women completed the questionnaire. The adverse PCs of placing women on ER because of a diagnostic uncertainty were higher (63%; n = 81 of 130) than those of women placed on RR after mammography (29%; n = 38 of 130) (P < 0.00001) or assessment (50%; n = 64 of 128) (P < 0.05), but lower than the adverse PCs of women who underwent a benign biopsy (87%; n = 26 of 30) (P < 0.05). Factors that were significantly associated with subsequent adverse PCs were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: The adverse PCs of being placed on ER because of a diagnostic uncertainty were significantly higher than those of women who turned out to have a false-positive mammographic result after assessment. Possible practical solutions are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9368874     DOI: 10.1177/096914139700400309

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  28 in total

1.  Women should be fully informed of the potential benefits and harms before screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; V L Ernster
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-11

2.  Waiting for a diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram. SMPBC diagnostic process workgroup. Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia.

Authors:  I A Olivotto; L Kan; S King
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr

3.  Equity in prevention and health care.

Authors:  V Lorant; B Boland; P Humblet; D Deliège
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Measuring psychological consequences of screening: adaptation of the psychological consequences questionnaire into Dutch.

Authors:  A J Rijnsburger; M L Essink-Bot; E van As; J Cockburn; H J de Koning
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Mammography and the politics of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  J Wells
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

6.  Healthcare use after screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Margaret M Byrne; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Wei Zhao; Joel L Weissfeld; Mark S Roberts
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Optimal Policies for Reducing Unnecessary Follow-up Mammography Exams in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Decis Anal       Date:  2013-09

8.  Scan-associated distress in lung cancer: Quantifying the impact of "scanxiety".

Authors:  Joshua M Bauml; Andrea Troxel; C Neill Epperson; Roger B Cohen; Kathryn Schmitz; Carrie Stricker; Lawrence N Shulman; Angela Bradbury; Jun J Mao; Corey J Langer
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 5.705

9.  Primary care visit use after positive fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Christopher D Jensen; Wei K Zhao; Alfred I Neugut; Benjamin Lebwohl; Jasmin A Tiro; Lawrence H Kushi; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Incidence, detection, and tumour stage of breast cancer in a cohort of Italian women with negative screening mammography report recommending early (short-interval) rescreen.

Authors:  Alessandra Ravaioli; Flavia Foca; Americo Colamartini; Fabio Falcini; Carlo Naldoni; Alba C Finarelli; Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi; Lauro Bucchi
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.