Attitudes of women in their forties toward the 2009 USPSTF mammogram guidelines: a randomized trial on the effects of media exposure
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2011-07-01Keywords
AdultBreast Neoplasms
Communications Media
Early Detection of Cancer
False Positive Reactions
Female
*Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Mammography
Middle Aged
*Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Risk
Women
breast cancer
mammogram screening guidelines
mammography
Community Health and Preventive Medicine
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Women's Health
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess women's attitudes toward 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force mammography screening guideline changes and evaluate the role of media in shaping opinions. STUDY DESIGN: Two hundred forty-nine women, aged 39-49 years, presenting for annual examinations randomized to read 1 of 2 articles, and survey completion comprised the design of the study. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent overestimated the lifetime breast cancer (BrCa) risk. Eighty-nine percent want yearly mammograms in their 40s. Eighty-six percent felt the changes were unsafe, and even if the changes were doctor recommended, 84% would not delay screening until age 50 years. Those with a friend/relative with BrCa were more likely to want annual mammography in their forties (92% vs 77%, P = .001), and feel changes unsafe (91% vs 69%, P ≤ .0001). Participants with previous false-positive mammograms were less likely to accept doctor-recommended screening delay until age 50 years (8% vs 21%, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Women overestimate BrCa risk. Skepticism of new mammogram guidelines exists, and is increased by exposure to negative media. Those with prior false-positive mammograms are less likely to accept changes. Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.Source
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jul;205(1):30.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.04.005. Epub 2011 Apr 14. Link to article on publisher's site
DOI
10.1016/j.ajog.2011.04.005Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/42867PubMed ID
22088897Related Resources
ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.ajog.2011.04.005