Mammographic screening for young women with a family history of breast cancer: knowledge and views of those at risk.

Although the effectiveness of mammography for women under the age of 50 years with a family history of breast cancer (FHBC) has not yet been proven, annual screening is being offered to these women to manage breast cancer risk. This study investigates women's awareness and interpretation of their familial risk and knowledge and views about mammographic screening. A total of 2231 women from 21 familial/breast/genetics centres who were assessed as moderate risk (17-30% lifetime risk) or high risk (>30% lifetime risk) completed a questionnaire before their mammographic screening appointment. Most women (70%) believed they were likely, very likely or definitely going to develop breast cancer in their lifetime. Almost all women (97%) understood that the purpose of mammographic screening was to allow the early detection of breast cancer. However, 20% believed that a normal mammogram result meant there was definitely no breast cancer present, and only 4% understood that screening has not been proven to save lives in women under the age of 50 years. Women held positive views on mammography but did not appear to be well informed about the potential disadvantages. These findings suggest that further attention should be paid to improving information provision to women with an FHBC being offered routine screening.

Predictors of breast cancer-related distress following mammography screening in younger women on a family history breast screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal study investigated pre-screening factors that predicted breast cancer-specific distress among 1286 women who were undergoing annual mammography screening as part of a UK programme for younger women (i.e., under 50) with a family history of breast cancer. METHODS: Women completed questionnaires one month prior to screening, and one and six months after receiving screening results. Factors measured were breast cancer worry, perceived risk, cognitive appraisals, coping, dispositional optimism, and background variables relating to screening history and family history. RESULTS: Pre-screening cancer worry was the most important predictor of subsequent worry, explaining 56/61% and 54/57% of the variance at one and six months follow-up, respectively. Other salient pre-screening predictors included high perceived risk of breast cancer, appraisals of high relevance and threat associated with the family history, and low perceived ability to cope emotionally. Women who had previously been part of the screening programme and those with a relative who had recently died from breast cancer were also vulnerable to longer-term distress. A false positive screening result, pessimistic personality, and coping efforts relating to religion and substance use predicted outcomes of screening at one month follow-up, but were not predictive in the longer-term. CONCLUSION: Early intervention to ameliorate high levels of cancer-related distress and negative appraisals would benefit some women as they progress through the familial breast screening programme.

Diagnosed with breast cancer while on a family history screening programme: an exploratory qualitative study.

Mammographic screening is offered to many women under 50 in the UK who are at moderate or high risk of developing breast cancer because of their family history of the disease. Little is understood about the impact of screening on the emotional well-being of women with a family history of breast cancer. This qualitative study explores the value that women at increased risk placed on screening, both pre- and post-cancer diagnosis and the impact of the diagnosis. In-depth interviews were undertaken with 12 women, aged 35-50, diagnosed with breast cancer while on an annual mammographic screening programme. Women described the strong sense of reassurance gained from screening prior to diagnosis. This faith in screening was reinforced by early detection of their cancer. Reactions to diagnosis ranged from devastation to relief at having finally developed a long-expected condition. Despite their positive attitudes about screening, not all women wanted to continue with surveillance. For some, prophylactic mastectomy was preferable, to reduce future cancer risk and to alleviate anxieties about the detection of another cancer at each subsequent screen. This study illustrates the positive yet diverse attitudes towards mammographic screening in this group of women with a family history of breast cancer.

Factors associated with breast cancer-specific distress in younger women participating in a family history mammography screening programme.

This multi-centre study examined factors associated with breast cancer-specific distress in 2321 women under 50 who are on a mammographic screening programme on account of their family history. Women were recruited from 21 UK centres, and completed a questionnaire one month before their screening appointment. The transactional theory of stress, appraisal, and coping provided the theoretical framework for the study. Factors measured included screening history, family history, perceived risk, cognitive appraisals, coping, optimism, and cancer worry. The findings indicate that the majority of women appraise their family history as being relevant and somewhat threatening to personal well-being, but something they can deal with emotionally. Acceptance was the most commonly used coping strategy. Hierarchical regression analysis identified that the factors most significantly associated with distress were an appraisal of high relevance and threat, increased risk perception, low dispositional optimism, and the use of both avoidant and task-orientated coping strategies. Women with children and those with relatives who have died from breast cancer were also more distressed. To conclude, most women appraised their situation positively but there is a potential profile of risk factors which may help clinicians identify those women who need extra psychological support as they progress through screening.

Can clinical assessment of chest pain be made more therapeutic?

We describe the referral and management of consecutive patients attending a cardiac service with the presenting complaint of chest pain. Of 610 consecutive new referrals to five Oxford cardiac clinics over 12 weeks, 202 had chest pain as the presenting complaint: 91 (45%) angina, 101 (50%) non-cardiac chest pain, 8 (4%) both and 2 (1%) uncertain diagnosis. Information in clinic letters was sometimes ambiguous and contradictory and suggested a lack of precise information to patients. Patients with non-cardiac chest pain often had long histories, including considerable previous use of services and specialist investigations. There were delays in referral and assessment of patients. There are opportunities for simple changes in assessment procedures which might have substantial advantages for outcome and resource: (i) more detailed referral information from general practitioners, with an explicit statement of the reasons for referral; (ii) minor modifications to augment the assessment by provision of unambiguous information to patients and primary care at discharge.

Non-cardiac chest pain: why was a brief intervention apparently ineffective?

BACKGROUND: Patients who present with chest pain but have normal coronary angiography and who are told by their cardiologist that they do not have heart disease, have a poor symptomatic, psychological and quality of life outcome and remain concerned about a serious cause of their symptoms. They frequently complain they have not had enough information. The study aimed to test the effectiveness and acceptability of a brief psychological intervention based on cognitive behavioural principles. METHODS: Consecutive patients with chest pain and normal angiograms were assessed and invited to take part in a randomized controlled evaluation. The intervention consisted of an individualized information and discussion session by a specially trained cardiac nurse, together with a handout and cassette providing information and advice and telephone follow-up to discuss progress, answer questions and reiterate advice. RESULTS: The treatment proved to be unacceptable to some patients and there was no evidence of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for the preparation of patients undergoing angiography and for the timing and delivery of information and advice following a negative result are discussed.

Long-term outcome of motor vehicle accident injury.

OBJECTIVE: To define the psychological outcome at 5 years of a sample of non-head-injured motor vehicle accident victims and identify baseline predictors. METHODS: Self-report questionnaires were completed by 111 consecutive subjects who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident 5 years earlier and who had been assessed previously in a prospective 1-year study. RESULTS: Although most subjects reported a good outcome, a substantial minority described continuing social, physical, and psychological difficulties and a quarter of those studied suffered phobic anxiety about travel as a driver or passenger. There was little change in quality of life outcome and effects on travel between assessments at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years. The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder remained approximately 10% throughout the follow-up; most early cases had remitted by 5 years, and a similar number of delayed new onsets had occurred between 1 year and 5 years. PTSD at 5 years was predicted by physical outcome and by postaccident intrusive memories and emotional distress. Compensation proceedings were initiated by 66 subjects and were often prolonged and a cause of distress. There were no significant associations with outcome. Trends for a poor outcome in claimants, especially those not settled at 5 years, may be due to their having more serious physical problems. CONCLUSION: Psychological complications are important and persistent after injury in a motor vehicle accident, are associated with adverse effects on everyday activities, and pose a challenge for consultation-liaison psychiatry.