THE EFFECTS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT MAMMOGRAPHIC BREAST DENSITY IN A MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING PROGRAM: A CONTROLLED TRIAL

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/165502
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
THE EFFECTS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT MAMMOGRAPHIC BREAST DENSITY IN A MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING PROGRAM: A CONTROLLED TRIAL
Author(s):
Bottorff, Joan; Ratner, Pamela; Johnson, Joy; Buxton, Jane; Hislop, T. Gregory; Chen, Weihong; Zeisser, Cornelia
Author Details:
Joan Bottorff, RN, PhD, SON, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Pamela Ratner, RN, PhD; Joy Johnson, RN, PhD; Jane Buxton, MBBS, MHSc, FRCPC; T. Gregory Hislop, MD; Weihong Chen, RN, MN, PhD Student; Cornelia Zeisser, BSc, MEd Student
Abstract:
The density of a woman's breast has emerged as a moderate risk factor for breast cancer. Given this, there is a cogent argument that women should be informed about their mammographic breast density (MBD). Such an argument, however, must be weighed against any evidence that sharing such information leads to harm by causing excessive anxiety. It is not routine practice in most screening programs to share MBD information with women or their physicians. The purpose of this study was to determine the consequences of providing MBD information to women with breast density greater than 50% of the breast volume with the results of their screening mammogram. Risk communication theory includes domains of risk perception, cognitive processing, decision making under uncertainty, and health behavior. A randomized experiment was conducted and included 618 women who attended one of five screening mammography centers (68% participation rate). The intervention consisted of reporting the presence of MBD in screening mammogram results letters along with a pamphlet that included a description of MBD and other risk factors for breast cancer, factors that influence MBD, and the importance of regular screening. Comparisons between the study groups at 4 weeks and 6 months post-mammogram were made by assessing breast screening practices and psychological outcomes including preoccupation with breast cancer, breast cancer worry, and psychological distress. The study groups were compared on baseline demographic characteristics and personal background to determine equivalency. Dependent variables were examined for group differences via Chi-square analysis and Student’s t-tests. Comparison of study groups by breast cancer screening participation revealed a significant difference at 4 weeks for likelihood of having a clinical breast examination (CBE). More women in the intervention group reported being “very likely” to have an annual CBE than women in the control group. No statistically significant differences on the other variables measuring breast cancer screening participation at either 4-week or 6-month follow-ups were found. In addition, there were no statistically significant group differences in women’s psychological responses at either the 4-week or 6-month follow-up. Providing MBD information in mammography screening results letters appears to be a cost-effective strategy for sharing risk information that may become increasingly useful in prevention decisions.
Repository Posting Date:
27-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
27-Oct-2011
Conference Date:
2005
Conference Name:
30th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congress
Conference Host:
Oncology Nursing Society
Conference Location:
Orlando, Florida, USA
Sponsors:
Funding Sources: Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_US
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleTHE EFFECTS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT MAMMOGRAPHIC BREAST DENSITY IN A MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING PROGRAM: A CONTROLLED TRIALen_GB
dc.contributor.authorBottorff, Joanen_US
dc.contributor.authorRatner, Pamelaen_US
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Joyen_US
dc.contributor.authorBuxton, Janeen_US
dc.contributor.authorHislop, T. Gregoryen_US
dc.contributor.authorChen, Weihongen_US
dc.contributor.authorZeisser, Corneliaen_US
dc.author.detailsJoan Bottorff, RN, PhD, SON, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Pamela Ratner, RN, PhD; Joy Johnson, RN, PhD; Jane Buxton, MBBS, MHSc, FRCPC; T. Gregory Hislop, MD; Weihong Chen, RN, MN, PhD Student; Cornelia Zeisser, BSc, MEd Studenten_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/165502-
dc.description.abstractThe density of a woman's breast has emerged as a moderate risk factor for breast cancer. Given this, there is a cogent argument that women should be informed about their mammographic breast density (MBD). Such an argument, however, must be weighed against any evidence that sharing such information leads to harm by causing excessive anxiety. It is not routine practice in most screening programs to share MBD information with women or their physicians. The purpose of this study was to determine the consequences of providing MBD information to women with breast density greater than 50% of the breast volume with the results of their screening mammogram. Risk communication theory includes domains of risk perception, cognitive processing, decision making under uncertainty, and health behavior. A randomized experiment was conducted and included 618 women who attended one of five screening mammography centers (68% participation rate). The intervention consisted of reporting the presence of MBD in screening mammogram results letters along with a pamphlet that included a description of MBD and other risk factors for breast cancer, factors that influence MBD, and the importance of regular screening. Comparisons between the study groups at 4 weeks and 6 months post-mammogram were made by assessing breast screening practices and psychological outcomes including preoccupation with breast cancer, breast cancer worry, and psychological distress. The study groups were compared on baseline demographic characteristics and personal background to determine equivalency. Dependent variables were examined for group differences via Chi-square analysis and Student’s t-tests. Comparison of study groups by breast cancer screening participation revealed a significant difference at 4 weeks for likelihood of having a clinical breast examination (CBE). More women in the intervention group reported being “very likely” to have an annual CBE than women in the control group. No statistically significant differences on the other variables measuring breast cancer screening participation at either 4-week or 6-month follow-ups were found. In addition, there were no statistically significant group differences in women’s psychological responses at either the 4-week or 6-month follow-up. Providing MBD information in mammography screening results letters appears to be a cost-effective strategy for sharing risk information that may become increasingly useful in prevention decisions.en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-27T12:19:47Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-27en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-27T12:19:47Z-
dc.conference.date2005en_US
dc.conference.name30th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congressen_US
dc.conference.hostOncology Nursing Societyen_US
dc.conference.locationOrlando, Florida, USAen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipFunding Sources: Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation-
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.