» Articles » PMID: 10930111

Pain Experienced by Women Attending Breast Cancer Screening

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2000 Aug 10
PMID 10930111
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pain experience of women during mammography for breast cancer screening. Possible associations with personal and medical history, sociodemographics and/or situational factors were studied. It was also investigated whether this pain influenced the intention to return for future breast cancer screening. In the Netherlands, women between 50-75 years are invited for screening every two years. A total of 1200 participants were asked to fill up a questionnaire. The response rate was 79.5% (n = 954), and 945 questionnaires contained adequate information for analyses. A total of 689 women (72.9%) described mammography as mild to severely painful. In this group, compared to the group that reported no pain, the following factors occurred significantly more often: sensitive breasts (P = 0.001), family history of breast diseases (P = 0.017); expected pain based on former mammography (P = 0.001), high education (P = 0.008), anxiety (P = 0.001), breast sensitivity in last three days (P = 0.001), insufficient attention of technologist (P = 0.001). Other factors like age, hormonal status, breast size and hormone use were not associated with the pain experienced. Thirty-two women (3.3%) indicated that they would not attend further screening, 25 (2.6%) reported that the pain might deter them, six women (0.6%) had other reasons, one woman (0.1%) was sure not to come because of severe pain. In conclusion, a large majority of women attending breast cancer screening describes mammography as painful (72.9%). Factors associated with pain were described. Relatively few women (2.7%) indicated that the pain might deter them from future mammography. Recommendations are given to reduce the pain experienced during screening mammography.

Citing Articles

Patients' perceptions of targeted breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: A mixed methods study.

Siebers C, Appelman L, Koco L, Palm M, Rainey L, Broeders M PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0308840.

PMID: 39141648 PMC: 11324127. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308840.


Patient perception of meander-like versus radial breast ultrasound.

Brasier-Lutz P, Jaggi-Wickes C, Schadelin S, Burian R, Schoenenberger C, Zanetti-Dallenbach R Ultrasound Int Open. 2024; 10:a22829193.

PMID: 38737925 PMC: 11086955. DOI: 10.1055/a-2282-9193.


Performance of dedicated breast PET in breast cancer screening: comparison with digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound.

Yuge S, Miyake K, Ishimori T, Kataoka M, Matsumoto Y, Torii M Ann Nucl Med. 2023; 37(9):479-493.

PMID: 37280410 DOI: 10.1007/s12149-023-01846-9.


Gradient-Boosting Algorithm for Microwave Breast Lesion Classification-SAFE Clinical Investigation.

Janjic A, Akduman I, Cayoren M, Bugdayci O, Aribal M Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(12).

PMID: 36553158 PMC: 9777022. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12123151.


Breast cancer screening adherence rates and barriers of implementation in ethnic, cultural and religious minorities: A systematic review.

Ferreira C, Rodrigues J, Moreira S, Ribeiro F, Longatto-Filho A Mol Clin Oncol. 2021; 15(1):139.

PMID: 34055354 PMC: 8145341. DOI: 10.3892/mco.2021.2301.