» Articles » PMID: 26007689

Psychological Impact of Breast Cancer Screening in Japan

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2015 May 27
PMID 26007689
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychological impact of breast cancer screening by use of mammography and/or ultrasound, and to reveal factors related to psychological distress.

Methods: Three hundred and twenty women were recalled to our hospital because of suspicious malignant findings from breast cancer screening between March and November 2012. They were asked to complete three questionnaires: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for anxiety and depression, the Brief Coping Orientations to Problems Experienced scale (Brief COPE) for coping styles, and an original questionnaire for personal information.

Results: Complete data were available for 312 of 320 women (97.5 %). The median age was 45 years (range 23-73). The HADS revealed borderline or clinically significant anxiety for 70 % of the women. Family history of breast cancer, area of residence, number of times screened, number of recalls, and the period before the first visit were significantly related to psychological distress (p < 0.05). Brief COPE scores showed that self-blame, behavioral disengagement, self-distraction, use of emotional support, venting, denial, and less acceptance were related to increased anxiety.

Conclusion: Seventy percent of women who were recalled after breast cancer screening experienced psychological distress. Thus, negative psychological impact should be regarded as an adverse effect of breast cancer screening.

Citing Articles

Are Diagnostic Delays Associated with Distress in Breast Cancer Patients?.

Yang J, Huynh V, Leonard L, Kovar A, Bronsert M, Ludwigson A Breast Care (Basel). 2023; 18(4):240-248.

PMID: 37900555 PMC: 10601706. DOI: 10.1159/000529586.


The psychological impact of esophageal cancer screening on anxiety and depression in China.

Zhu J, Ma S, Chen R, Liu Z, Liu Z, Wei W Front Psychiatry. 2022; 13:933678.

PMID: 36339848 PMC: 9630588. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.933678.


Experiences of Women Who Refuse Recall for Further Investigation of Abnormal Screening Mammography: A Qualitative Study.

Sung W, Yang H, Liao I, Su Y, Chen F, Chen S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(3).

PMID: 35162064 PMC: 8834256. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031041.


The prevalence of perceived stigma and self-blame and their associations with depression, emotional well-being and social well-being among advanced cancer patients: evidence from the APPROACH cross-sectional study in Vietnam.

Pham N, Lee J, Pham N, Phan T, Tran K, Dang H BMC Palliat Care. 2021; 20(1):104.

PMID: 34233662 PMC: 8265020. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-021-00803-5.


Coping and Prognostic Awareness in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

Nipp R, Greer J, El-Jawahri A, Moran S, Traeger L, Jacobs J J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35(22):2551-2557.

PMID: 28574777 PMC: 5536163. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.3404.


References
1.
Welch H, Passow H . Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174(3):448-54. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13635. View

2.
Gilbert F, Cordiner C, Affleck I, Hood D, Mathieson D, Walker L . Breast screening: the psychological sequelae of false-positive recall in women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1999; 34(13):2010-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(98)00294-9. View

3.
Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G . Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment. J Public Health Med. 1999; 20(4):396-403. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024793. View

4.
Pace L, Keating N . A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA. 2014; 311(13):1327-35. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.1398. View

5.
. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012; 380(9855):1778-86. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0. View