Connect
MJA
MJA

Psychological distress and streamlined BreastScreen follow-up assessment versus standard assessment

Kerry A Sherman, Caleb J Winch, Natacha Borecky and John Boyages
Med J Aust 2013; 199 (9): 599-603. || doi: 10.5694/mja13.10112

Summary

Objectives: To establish whether altered protocol characteristics of streamlined StepDown breast assessment clinics heightened or reduced the psychological distress of women in attendance compared with standard assessment. Willingness to attend future screening was also compared between the assessment groups.

Design: Observational, prospective study of women attending either a mammogram-only StepDown or a standard breast assessment clinic. Women completed questionnaires on the day of assessment and 1 month later.

Participants and setting: Women attending StepDown (136 women) or standard assessment clinics (148 women) at a BreastScreen centre between 10 November 2009 and 7 August 2010.

Main outcome measures: Breast cancer worries; positive and negative psychological consequences of assessment (Psychological Consequences Questionnaire); breast cancer-related intrusion and avoidance (Impact of Event Scale); and willingness to attend, and uneasiness about, future screening.

Results: At 1-month follow-up, no group differences were evident between those attending standard and StepDown clinics on breast cancer worries (P = 0.44), positive (P = 0.88) and negative (P = 0.65) consequences, intrusion (P = 0.64), and avoidance (P = 0.87). Willingness to return for future mammograms was high, and did not differ between groups (P = 0.16), although higher levels of unease were associated with lessened willingness to rescreen (P = 0.04).

Conclusions: There was no evidence that attending streamlined StepDown assessments had different outcomes in terms of distress than attending standard assessment clinics for women with a BreastScreen-detected abnormality. However, unease about attending future screening was generally associated with less willingness to do so in both groups; thus, there is a role for psycho-educational intervention to address these concerns.

  • Kerry A Sherman1,2
  • Caleb J Winch1
  • Natacha Borecky2
  • John Boyages3,2

  • 1 Centre for Emotional Health, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW.
  • 2 Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW.
  • 3 Macquarie University Cancer Institute, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW.

Correspondence: kerry.sherman@mq.edu.au

Acknowledgements: 

We would like to acknowledge NSW Health, from which the Westmead Breast Cancer Institute receives funding. We thank Sarah Ellis and Claire Gore for assisting with recruitment, and Matthew Beacom for contributing to manuscript preparation.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. BreastScreen Australia Quality Improvement Program. BreastScreen Australia National Accreditation Standards. 2010. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/br-accreditation/$File/standards.pdf (accessed Nov 2012).
  • 2. Salz T, Richman AR, Brewer NT. Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes. Psychooncology 2010; 19: 1026-1034.
  • 3. Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, et al. The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psychooncology 2005; 14: 917-938.
  • 4. Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 502-510.
  • 5. Sim MJ, Siva SP, Ramli IS, et al. Effect of false-positive screening mammograms on rescreening in Western Australia. Med J Aust 2012; 196: 693-695. <MJA full text>
  • 6. Barton MB, Morley DS, Moore S, et al. Decreasing women’s anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 529-538.
  • 7. Lindfors KK, O’Connor J, Parker RA. False-positive screening mammograms: effect of immediate versus later work-up on patient stress. Radiology 2001; 218: 247-253.
  • 8. Solbjør M, Forsmo S, Skolbekken JA, Sætnan AR. Experiences of recall after mammography screening—a qualitative study. Health Care Women Int 2011; 32: 1009-1027.
  • 9. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, et al. Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol 1991; 10: 259-267.
  • 10. Cockburn J, De Luise T, Hurley S, Clover K. Development and validation of the PCQ: a questionnaire to measure the psychological consequences of screening mammography. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 1129-1134.
  • 11. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 1979; 41: 209-218.
  • 12. van Ginkel JR, van der Ark LA. SPSS syntax for missing value imputation in test and questionnaire data. Applied Psychological Measurement 2005; 29: 152-153. doi: 10.1177/0146621603260688.
  • 13. Van der Ark LA, Sijtsma K. The effect of missing data imputation on Mokken Scale Analysis. In: Van der Ark LA, Croon MA, Sijtsma K, editors. New developments in categorical data analysis for the social and behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2005.
  • 14. Sijtsma K, van der Ark LA. Investigation and treatment of missing item scores in test and questionnaire data. Multivariate Behavioural Research 2003; 38: 505-528. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3804_4.
  • 15. Bowland L, Cockburn J, Cawson J, et al. Counselling interventions to address the psychological consequences of screening mammography: a randomised trial. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 49: 189-198.
  • 16. Olsson P, Armelius K, Nordahl G, et al. Women with false positive screening mammograms: how do they cope? J Med Screen 1999; 6: 89-93.
  • 17. Tyndel S, Austoker J, Henderson BJ, et al. What is the psychological impact of mammographic screening on younger women with a family history of breast cancer? Findings from a prospective cohort study by the PIMMS Management Group. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3823-3830.
  • 18. Brédart A, Kop JL, Fall M, et al. Anxiety and specific distress in women at intermediate and high risk of breast cancer before and after surveillance by magnetic resonance imaging and mammography versus standard mammography. Psychooncology 2011; 21: 1185-1194.
  • 19. Fischer J, Corcoran K. Measures for clinical practice: a sourcebook. Vol. 2: adults. 3rd ed. New York: The Free Press, 1994.
  • 20. Lerman C, Daly M, Sands C, et al. Mammography adherence and psychological distress among women at risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 1074-1080.
  • 21. Audrain J, Rimer B, Cella D, et al. The impact of a brief coping skills intervention on adherence to breast self-examination among first-degree relatives of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Psychooncology 1999; 8: 220-229.
  • 22. Brett J, Austoker J. Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med 2001; 23: 292-300.
  • 23. Ong G, Austoker J. Recalling women for further investigation of breast screening: women’s experiences at the clinic and afterwards. J Public Health Med 1997; 19: 29-36.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.