Literature DB >> 9709289

The psychosocial consequences of mammography.

B K Rimer1, L G Bluman.   

Abstract

Increasing numbers of mammograms being performed in the United States will be accompanied inevitably by an increasing number of false positives. According to reliable estimates from a survey of radiology facilities, U.S. women in their forties experience close to one million false positive mammograms every year. To determine the impact of false positive mammograms and the broader psychological impact of mammography, we conducted literature searches of Medline, CancerLit, and PsycInfo. We identified nine studies examining the impact of false positive mammograms. Most found short-term increases in such psychological measures as anxiety, distress, and intrusive thoughts. One study found substantial effects on these measures three months after an abnormal mammogram. Another study found an 18-month impact on anxiety. Few studies have used behavioral outcomes, but one reported overpractice of breast self-exam among women who had received false positive results. Another found no reduction in adherence to mammography among women who have had an abnormal test. The more general mammography literature suggests that many women are anxious about mammography before the exam; women with lower levels of education, African Americans, and women with a family history of breast cancer may be more vulnerable to distress. Unfortunately, this literature suffers major limitations, such as small sample sizes, inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate measures, variations in the time frames for measurement, few studies with women aged 40-49, and a paucity of U.S. research. More research is needed to characterize at-risk women and to test interventions designed to reduce the negative impact of abnormal mammograms. Improved communication is also needed throughout the entire mammography process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9709289     DOI: 10.1093/jncimono/1997.22.131

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr        ISSN: 1052-6773


  15 in total

1.  Improving the time to diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Authors:  I A Olivotto; M J Borugian; L Kan; S R Harris; E J Rousseau; S E Thorne; J A Vestrup; C J Wright; A J Coldman; T G Hislop
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct

Review 2.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Effect of screening result on waiting times to assessment and breast cancer diagnosis: results from the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Verna Mai; Erika E Halapy; Rene S Shumak; Frances P O'Malley; Neil S Klar
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug

4.  Opinions of women with high inherited breast cancer risk about prophylactic mastectomy: an initial evaluation from a screening trial including magnetic resonance imaging and ductal lavage.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Anne-Renee Hartman; Meredith A Mills; James M Ford; Bruce L Daniel; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  A model of the influence of false-positive mammography screening results on subsequent screening.

Authors:  Jessica T Defrank; Noel Brewer
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2010

6.  Breast cancer risk prediction and mammography biopsy decisions: a model-based study.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Elizabeth A Handorf; Jinbo Chen; Mirar N Bristol Demeter
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  Improving work-up of the abnormal mammogram through organized assessment: results from the ontario breast screening program.

Authors:  May Lynn Quan; Rene S Shumak; Vicky Majpruz; Claire M D Holloway; Frances P O'Malley; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 3.840

8.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Steinar Thoresen; Per Skaane
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 8.082

9.  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

Review 10.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review.

Authors:  Monika Nothacker; Volker Duda; Markus Hahn; Mathias Warm; Friedrich Degenhardt; Helmut Madjar; Susanne Weinbrenner; Ute-Susann Albert
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-09-20       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.