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

Kerry A. Sherman, Caleb J. Winch, Natacha Borecky, John Boyages

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

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.

LanguageEnglish
Pages599-603
Number of pages5
JournalMedical Journal of Australia
Volume199
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 4 Sep 2013

Fingerprint

Psychology
Breast Neoplasms
Breast
Observational Studies
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prospective Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

@article{0185bf37fddb4877af2f29c1a9a752e8,
title = "Psychological distress and streamlined BreastScreen follow-up assessment versus standard assessment",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Sherman, {Kerry A.} and Winch, {Caleb J.} and Natacha Borecky and John Boyages",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
day = "4",
doi = "10.5694/mja13.10112",
language = "English",
volume = "199",
pages = "599--603",
journal = "Medical Journal of Australia",
issn = "1326-5377",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley",
number = "9",

}

Psychological distress and streamlined BreastScreen follow-up assessment versus standard assessment. / Sherman, Kerry A.; Winch, Caleb J.; Borecky, Natacha; Boyages, John.

In: Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 199, No. 9, 04.09.2013, p. 599-603.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Psychological distress and streamlined BreastScreen follow-up assessment versus standard assessment

AU - Sherman, Kerry A.

AU - Winch, Caleb J.

AU - Borecky, Natacha

AU - Boyages, John

PY - 2013/9/4

Y1 - 2013/9/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887396592&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5694/mja13.10112

DO - 10.5694/mja13.10112

M3 - Article

VL - 199

SP - 599

EP - 603

JO - Medical Journal of Australia

T2 - Medical Journal of Australia

JF - Medical Journal of Australia

SN - 1326-5377

IS - 9

ER -