Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether mammography raises anxiety in routinely screened women who receive a negative result. DESIGN: Prospective design in which women completed questionnaires at three key points in the breast screening process: at baseline (before being sent their invitation for breast screening), at the screening clinic immediately before or after screening, and at follow up, about nine months after baseline. Information was obtained from non-attenders as well as from attenders. SETTING: Bromley District Health Authority, served by the South East London Breast Screening Service. PARTICIPANTS: Two overlapping samples were used. Sample A comprised 1500 women aged 50-64 who were due to be called for first round screening at a mobile screening unit. Altogether 1021 (68%) returned a usable questionnaire and 795 of these (78%) also provided adequate information at nine month follow up: there were 695 attenders (including 24 women who received false positive results) and 100 non-attenders. Sample B consisted of 868 women who attended the screening unit in a three month period, 732 (84%) of whom provided adequate data. A total of 306 attenders (including 10 who received false positive results) occurred in both samples and provided adequate information on all occasions. The main analyses were based on these 306 women plus the 100 non-attenders. The analysis of retrospective anxiety took advantage of the larger sample size of 695 attenders. MAIN RESULTS: On average, the women were not unduly anxious at any of the three points in the screening process. Among attenders, there was no difference between anxiety levels immediately before and immediately after screening. Anxiety was lowest at the clinic and highest at baseline but the changes were very small in absolute terms. Anxiety did not predict attendance: there were no differences in anxiety levels between attenders and non-attenders at baseline. As expected, women who received false positive results recalled feeling extremely anxious after they had received the referral letter but their retrospective anxiety was also higher than in the negative screenees at earlier stages in the breast screening process. They also reported having experienced more pain and discomfort during the x ray. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety does not seem to be an important problem in routinely screened women who receive a negative result. This finding is very reassuring in relation to a major criticism of breast screening programmes. Thus, apart from maintaining current procedures such as keeping waiting times to a minimum, there seems to be no need to introduce special anxiety reducing interventions into the national programme. On the other hand, the findings for women who received false positive results suggest that there are aspects of the experience of being recalled for assessment after an abnormal mammogram that warrant further attention. The relationship between contemporaneous and retrospective anxiety should also be studied.

Prospective study of predictors of attendance for breast screening in inner London.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the predictors of first-round attendance for breast screening in an inner city area. DESIGN: Prospective design in which women were interviewed or completed a postal questionnaire before being sent their invitation for breast screening. Sociodemographic factors, health behaviours, and attitudes, beliefs, and intentions were used as predictors of subsequent attendance. A randomised control group was included to assess the effect of being interviewed on attendance. SETTING: Three neighbouring health districts in inner south east London. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3291 women aged 50-64 years who were due to be called for breast screening for the first time. The analysis of predictors was based on a subsample of 1301, reflecting a response rate of 75% to interview and 36% to postal questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS: Attendance was 42% overall, and 70% in those who gave an interview or returned a questionnaire. There was little evidence for an interview effect on attendance. The main findings from the analysis of predictors are listed below. (These were necessarily based on those women who responded to interview/questionnaire and so may not be generalisable to the full sample.) (1) Sociodemographic factors: Women in rented accommodation were less likely to go for screening but other indicators of social class and education were not predictive of attendance. Age and other risk factors for breast cancer were unrelated to attendance, as was the distance between home and the screening centre. Married or single women were more likely to attend than divorced, separated, or widowed women, and black women had a higher than average attendance rate; however, neither of these relationships was found in the interview sample. (2) Health behaviours: Attenders were less likely to have had a recent breast screen, more likely to have had a cervical smear, more likely to go to the dentist for check ups, and differed from non-attenders with regard to drinking frequency. Exercise, smoking, diet change, and breast self-examination were unrelated to attendance. (3) Attitudes, beliefs, and intentions: The two best predictors were measures of the perceived importance of regular screening for cervical and breast cancer and intentions to go for breast screening. Also predictive were beliefs about the following: the personal consequences of going for breast screening, the effectiveness of breast screening, the chances of getting breast cancer, and the attitudes of significant others (the woman's husband/partner and children). Women who reported a moderate amount of worry about breast cancer were more likely to attend than those at the two extremes. CONCLUSIONS: Attenders and non-attenders differ in two broad areas: the health related behaviours they engage in and the attitudes, beliefs, and intentions they have towards breast cancer and breast screening. The latter are potentially amenable to change, and though different factors may operate among women who do not respond to questionnaires, the findings offer hope that attendance rates can be improved by targeting the relevant attitudes and beliefs. This could be done by changing the invitation letter and its accompanying literature, through national and local publicity campaigns, and by advice given by GPs, practice nurses, and other health professionals. It is essential that such interventions are properly evaluated, preferably in randomised controlled studies.

Sequential VATS lung volume reduction surgery: prolongation of benefits derived after the initial operation.

OBJECTIVE: Sequential lung volume reduction (LVR) is thought to provide additional and prolonged benefit compared with unilateral LVR. We tested this hypothesis by reviewing physiological, subjective and survival outcome data on patients who underwent sequential or unilateral LVR. METHODS: LVR was performed as a unilateral video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) procedure, with bilateral reduction being undertaken in a staged manner. Pulmonary function data were collected prospectively. A telephone survey of patients and general practitioners was used to determine quality of life and survival. RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent LVR. Twenty-one patients had staged reduction of the contra-lateral lung at a median interval of 9 months. Pre-operatively, patients undergoing sequential LVR were not significantly different from patients undergoing unilateral LVR: forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 23% predicted vs. 27% predicted, KCO 40% vs. 45%, total lung capacity (TLC) 124% vs. 121%, residual volume (RV) 217% vs. 214%, health score 34.5 vs. 30.8. After single-side LVR, both groups demonstrated equivalent and significant improvement in spirometric and subjective health scores: FEV1 +15% predicted (P<0.01), TLC -5% (P=0.03), health score +80% (P<0.01). Patients undergoing sequential reduction demonstrated no further significant improvements using either an intragroup comparison with their pre-second operation values or an intergroup comparison with the unilateral LVR patients. However, sequential LVR appeared to prolong the benefits experienced after the initial surgery by 1 year. Overall, 12 patients (24%) died during follow-up with no survival difference between the two groups (P=0.65). CONCLUSION: Sequential LVR is a safe strategy. Undertaking LVR to the second side does not further improve spirometric or subjective performance but does prolong the benefits achieved with the initial reduction.

Prevalence of severe fatigue in primary care.

A postal survey of 1024 UK GP practices showed the prevalence of medically unexplained severe fatigue over three months in 5-19 year olds to be 62/100,000. Cases were predominantly adolescent girls and were more likely to come from practices in less deprived areas, which could reflect consulting behaviours.

Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women.

The Objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that presenting risk information using numbers rather than words is a more effective way of communicating the residual risk inherent in a screen negative test result. We used a randomised controlled trial in a large UK teaching hospital. Two hundred and twenty pregnant women who received negative results on serum screening for Down syndrome participated. Presentation of screen negative test results were given either as a numerical probability (e.g. you have a 1:650 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome) or as a verbal probability (your chance of having a baby with Down syndrome is low). In both interventions the verbal anchor 'it is unlikely that your baby has Down syndrome' was used. Our aims were to measure the understanding of the residual risk in a screen negative result, and anxiety. Immediately after receipt of the results, 97% of those receiving their results in the form of a numerical probability and 91% of those receiving their results in the form of a verbal probability correctly understood that their baby probably did not have Down syndrome (95% CI for difference: 0% to 12%; p=0.04). All those who were incorrect believed that their baby definitely did not have Down syndrome. Subgroup analysis showed that this effect was confined to those with lower levels of education (i.e. those without a university degree), amongst whom understanding was poorer. There was no difference between intervention groups in understanding the results at four months. There were no differences between intervention groups in the levels of anxiety at one week or four months after receiving their results. In conclusion, communicating residual risks using numbers rather than words has a small beneficial effect of increasing awareness of residual risks without raising anxiety. Further work is needed to estimate the size of this effect in less well-informed and less highly educated populations.