Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol 51, 705-710

ARTICLES

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

W Scaf-Klomp, R Sanderman, HB van de Wiel, R Otter and WJ van den Heuvel
Northern Centre for Health Care Research, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the psychological impact of mammographic screening on women with non-malignant outcomes after attending the Netherlands' National Breast Cancer Screening Programme. DESIGN: During one year all women with false positive test results (95) in a screening area were invited for the study. Each false positive was matched with two women with normal mammograms with respect to age and municipality. A random reference group of 400 was drawn from the female population in an area not yet included in the screening programme. Experiences with screening and psychological status of subjects were assessed 8-10 weeks after screening (T1) and again after six months (T2), by interviews as well as questionnaires. References completed two questionnaires with a six months' interval. PARTICIPANTS: 74 (78%) women with false positive outcomes and 113 (59%) women with negative outcomes participated at T1, of these 65 (88%) and 105 (93%) at T2, respectively; 238 references returned questionnaires at T1 (59%), of these 143 (60%) at T2. MAIN RESULTS: At 8-10 weeks after the screening, the women who received false positive test results scored higher on most of the variables indicating psychological disfunctioning than women with normal mammograms, but did not notably differ on the same variables from the non-screened reference group. Women with normal mammograms had the lowest scores on all the variables in the study at both assessments. The same situation was observed six months later. Although 61% of the women who received false positive mammograms reported that they had experienced the "false alarm" as a stressful event, this experience had apparently no adverse effects on their psychological functioning, as assessed 8-10 weeks after screening. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, breast screening is not likely to generate adverse psychological effects in "healthy" women, even if the outcome is false positive. Differences in psychological functioning between false positives and negatives are more likely ascribable to feelings of relief in the negative group than to raised anxiety and distress in the false positive group.

Copyright © 1997 by the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. T. Brewer, T. Salz, and S. E. Lillie Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms Ann Intern Med, April 3, 2007; 146(7): 502 - 510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Armstrong, E. Moye, S. Williams, J. A. Berlin, and E. E. Reynolds Screening Mammography in Women 40 to 49 Years of Age: A Systematic Review for the American College of Physicians Ann Intern Med, April 3, 2007; 146(7): 516 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.J.H. Wermer, I.C. van der Schaaf, P. Van Nunen, P.M.M. Bossuyt, C.S. Anderson, and G.J.E. Rinkel Psychosocial Impact of Screening for Intracranial Aneurysms in Relatives With Familial Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Stroke, April 1, 2005; 36(4): 836 - 840. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. E. Simon, A. Steptoe, and J. Wardle Socioeconomic Status Differences in Coping With a Stressful Medical Procedure Psychosom Med, March 1, 2005; 67(2): 270 - 276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. D. Domar, A. Eyvazzadeh, S. Allen, K. Roman, R. Wolf, J. Orav, N. Albright, and J. Baum Relaxation Techniques for Reducing Pain and Anxiety During Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 445 - 447. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Lafata, J. Simpkins, L. Lamerato, L. Poisson, G. Divine, and C. C. Johnson The Economic Impact of False-Positive Cancer Screens Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 2126 - 2132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Barratt, L. Trevena, H. M Davey, and K. McCaffery Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening BMJ, August 28, 2004; 329(7464): 507 - 510. [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. F. Col, G. Weber, A. Stiggelbout, J. Chuo, R. D'Agostino, and P. Corso Short-term Menopausal Hormone Therapy for Symptom Relief: An Updated Decision Model Arch Intern Med, August 9, 2004; 164(15): 1634 - 1640. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. L. Taylor, R. Shelby, E. Gelmann, and C. McGuire Quality of Life and Trial Adherence Among Participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial J Natl Cancer Inst, July 21, 2004; 96(14): 1083 - 1094. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Cullen, M. D. Schwartz, W. F. Lawrence, J. V. Selby, and J. S. Mandelblatt Short-Term Impact of Cancer Prevention and Screening Activities on Quality of Life J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2004; 22(5): 943 - 952. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Gurevich, G. M. Devins, C. Wilson, D. McCready, C. R. Marmar, and G. M. Rodin Stress Response Syndromes in Women Undergoing Mammography: A Comparison of Women With and Without a History of Breast Cancer Psychosom Med, January 1, 2004; 66(1): 104 - 112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Janda, W. R. Stanton, K. Hughes, C. Del Mar, A. Clavarino, J. F. Aitken, Shilu Tong, L. Short, B. Leggett, and B. Newman Knowledge, Attitude and Intentions Related to Colorectal Cancer Screening Using Faecal Occult Blood Tests in a Rural Australian Population Asia Pac J Public Health, January 1, 2003; 15(1): 50 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M C van Maarle, M E A Stouthard, and G J Bonsel Quality of life in a family based genetic cascade screening programme for familial hypercholesterolaemia: a longitudinal study among participants J. Med. Genet., January 1, 2003; 40(1): e3 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]