HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dullum, J. R. Articles by Mayer, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dullum, J. R. Articles by Mayer, J. A.

Rates and Correlates of Discomfort Associated with Mammography¹

¹ From the Graduate School of Public Health, Hardy Tower 119, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-4162. Received November 5, 1998; revision requested December 10; revision received April 6, 1999; accepted April 27. Supported in part by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command under grant no. DAMD-17-94-J-4360. Address reprint requests to J.A.M. (e-mail: jmayer@mail.sdsu.edu).

PURPOSE: To explore the rates and correlates of discomfort at mammography in asymptomatic women aged 50–74 years from six San Diego, Calif, mammography facilities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects (N = 1,800) completed a 43-item telephone interview approximately 3 weeks after screening mammography. Bivariate associations between variables were analyzed with ² analysis. Logistic regression was used to assess the independent predictors of discomfort at mammography while controlling for all other factors.

RESULTS: Nine hundred thirty-three (52%) women reported moderate to extreme discomfort at mammography. Discomfort was not related to the intention to undergo future mammography (P = .95). Factors that were significantly associated with discomfort in multivariate analyses were facility (P < .001), satisfaction with care (P < .04), and perception of the technologist's "roughness" (P < .001).

CONCLUSION: Discomfort, although not related to the intention to undergo future mammography, had a relatively high incidence.

Index terms: Breast, 00.11 • Breast radiography, 00.11 • Cancer screening, 00.11

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. S. Saunders Jr, E. Samei, J. Y. Lo, and J. A. Baker Can Compression Be Reduced for Breast Tomosynthesis? Monte Carlo Study on Mass and Microcalcification Conspicuity in Tomosynthesis Radiology, June 1, 2009; 251(3): 673 - 682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Armstrong, E. Moye, S. Williams, J. A. Berlin, and E. E. Reynolds Screening Mammography in Women 40 to 49 Years of Age: A Systematic Review for the American College of Physicians Ann Intern Med, April 3, 2007; 146(7): 516 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. W. Fletcher and J. G. Elmore Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., April 24, 2003; 348(17): 1672 - 1680. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. C. Sharp, R. Michielutte, R. Freimanis, L. Cunningham, J. Spangler, and V. Burnette Reported Pain Following Mammography Screening Arch Intern Med, April 14, 2003; 163(7): 833 - 836. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. E. Carroll Tunable Monochromatic X Rays: A New Paradigm in Medicine Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2002; 179(3): 583 - 590. [Full Text] [PDF]