Better safe than sorry: a long-term perspective on experiences with a false-positive screening mammography in Denmark

References

• Alaszewski, A., 2009. The future of risk in social science theory and research. Health, risk & society, 11 (6), 487–492.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alaszewski, A. and Coxon, K., 2009. Uncertainty in everyday life: risk, worry and trust. Health, risk & society, 11 (3), 201–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Althusser, L., 1987. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In: J. Hanhardt, ed. Video culture: a critical investigation. New York: Gibbs Smith, 56–95.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, D., 1994. Medical surveillance of normal populations. In: G. Lawrence, ed. Technologies of modern medicine. London: Science Museum, 73–80.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, D., 1995. The rise of surveillance medicine. Sociology of health & illness, 17 (3), 393–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong, N., 2005. Resistance through risk: women and cervical cancer screening. Health, risk & society, 7 (2), 161–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barratt, A., et al., 2005. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. British medical journal, 330 (7497), 936–940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton, M.B., et al., 2001. Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. Journal of general internal medicine, 16 (3), 150–156.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beck, U., 1992. Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Brett, J. and Austoker, J., 2001. Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. Journal of public health medicine, 23 (4), 292–300.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brodersen, J., 2006. Measuring psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening results – breast cancer as an example. Thesis (PhD). University of Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Brodersen, J. and Lunde, I., 2002. Konsekvenser af usikkerheder og overdiagnosticering ved screening [Consequences of uncertainties and overdiagnosis in screening]. Ugeskrift for læger, 164 (2), 181–187.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brodersen, J., et al., 2008. Det informerede samtykke ved screening for brystkræft [Informed consent in mammography screening]. Månedsskrift for praktisk lægegerning, 5 (86), 551–557.
   Google Scholar
• Brodersen, J. and Siersma, V., 2012. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography – a cohort study with 3-year follow-up. Annals of family medicine, 11 (2), 106–115.
   Google Scholar
• Brodersen, J., Siersma, V., and Ryle, M., 2011. Breast cancer screening: ‘reassuring’ the worried well? Scandinavian journal of public health, 39 (3), 326–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodersen, J. and Thorsen, H., 2008. Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer (COS-BC): development of a questionnaire. Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 26 (4), 251–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodersen, J., Thorsen, H., and Cockburn, J., 2004. The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Journal of medical screening, 11 (1), 39–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodersen, J., Thorsen, H., and Kreiner, S., 2007. Validation of a condition-specific measure for women having an abnormal screening mammography. Value in health, 10 (4), 294–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cambrosio, A., Young, A., and Lock, M., 2000. Introduction. In: M. Lock, A. Young, and A. Cambrosio, eds. Living and working with the new medical technologies. Intersections of inquiry. Cambridge Studies in Medical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, X., Molins, E., and Macia, F., 2006. Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60 (4), 316–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen, C.L., et al., 2000. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. Journal of the national cancer institute, 92 (20), 1657–1666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cockburn, J., et al., 1994. Psychological consequences of screening mammography. Journal of medical screening, 1 (1), 7–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Craddock Lee, S.J., 2010. Uncertain futures: individual risk and social context in decision-making in cancer screening. Health, risk & society, 12 (2), 101–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean, M., 1999a. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, M., 1999b. Risk, calculable and incalculable. In: D. Lupton, ed. Risk and sociocultural theory: new directions and perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeFrank, J.T. and Brewer, N., 2010. A model of the influence of false-positive mammography screening results on subsequent screening. Health psychology review, 4 (2), 112–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmore, J.G., et al., 1998. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. New England journal of medicine, 338 (16), 1089–1096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EUnetHTA, 2011. HTA Core Model for screening technologies, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Fentiman, I.S., 1988. Pensive women, painful vigils: consequences of delay in assessment of mammographic abnormalities. Lancet, 331 (8593), 1041–1042.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12 (2), 219–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M., 1980. Power/knowledge: selected interviews & other writings 1972–1977. New York: Panteon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Garland, D., 1986. Review: Foucault’s ‘discipline and punish’ – an exposition and critique. The American bar foundation research journal, 11 (4), 847–880.
   Google Scholar
• Gestaldo, D., 1997. Is health education good for you? Rethinking health education through the concept of bio-power. In: A. Petersen and R. Bunton, eds. Foucault, health and medicine. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gifford, S., 1986. The meaning of lumps: a case study of the ambiguities of risk. In: G.R. Janes, R. Stall, and S.M. Gifford, eds. Anthropology and epidemiology – interdisciplinary approaches to the study of health and disease. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 213–246.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, F.J., et al., 1998. Breast screening: the psychological sequelae of false-positive recall in women with and without a family history of breast cancer. European journal of cancer, 34 (13), 2010–2014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gøtzsche, P., et al., 2009. Breast screening: the factsor or maybe not. British medical journal, 338, 446–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanin, L., 2011. Why victory in the war on cancer remains elusive: biomedical hypotheses and mathematical models. Cancers, 3 (1), 340–367.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hansson, A., et al., 2012. Opening Pandora’s box: the experiences of having an asymptomatic aortic aneurysm under surveillance. Health, risk & society, 14 (4), 341–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harding, J., 1997. Bodies at risk: sex, surveillance and hormone replacement therapy. In: A. Petersen and R. Bunton, eds. Foucault, health and medicine. London: Routledge, 134–150.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, I., 2006. Combating disease mongering: daunting but nonetheless essential. PLoS, 3 (4), 448–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heyman, B., 2010. Screening for health risks: a social science perspective. Health, risk & society, 12 (1), 1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofvind, S., Thoresen, S., and Tretli, S., 2004. The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer, 101 (7), 1501–1507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howson, A., 2001. Locating uncertainties in cervical screening. Health, risk & society, 3 (2), 167–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Høyer, K., 2008. Hvad er teori, og hvordan forholder teori sig til metode? [What is theory and how does it relate to methodology?]. In: S. Vallgårda and L. Koch, eds. Forskningsmetoder i Folkesundhedsvidenskab [Research methods in public health science]. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 17–41.
   Google Scholar
• Høyer, K. and Koch, L., 2007. Håbets teknologi – en skabelsesberetning [The technology of hope – the story of the creation]. In: L. Koch and K. Høyer, eds. Håbets teknologi [The technology of hope]. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 19–44.
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard, R.A., et al., 2011. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Annals of internal medicine, 155 (8), 481–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hvas, A., 1999. Sygeliggørelse og ‘medikalisering’ – forsøg på begrebsafklaring på baggrund af et litteraturstudie [Disease mongering and ‘medicalisation’ – an attemt to define the notions based on a literature review]. Ugeskrift for læger, 161 (42), 5783–5786.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jackson, M., 1998. Minima ethnographica – intersubjectivity and the anthropological project. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, R., Jessen, H., and Steffen, V., 2005. Matters of life and death. In: V. Steffen, R. Jenkins, and H. Jessen, eds. Managing uncertainty – ethnographic studies of illness, risk and the struggle for control. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 9–30.
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, K. and Gøtzsche, P., 2006. Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography. British medical journal, 332, 538–541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufert, P., 2000. Screening the body: the pap smear and the mammogram. In: M. Lock, A. Young, and A. Cambrosio, eds. Living and working with the new medical technologies. Intersections of Inquiry. Cambridge Studies in Medical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 165–183.
   Google Scholar
• Lampic, C., et al., 2001. Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening. European journal of cancer, 37 (4), 463–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langstrup, H., 2011. Interpellating patients as users: patient associations and the project-ness of stem cell research. Science, technology & human values, 36 (4), 573–594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law, J., 2002. Aircraft stories: decentering the object in technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lou, S., et al., 2007. En kvalitativ undersøgelse af gravides valg af nakkefoldskanning [A qualitative study of pregnant women’s choice of antenatal screening]. Ugeskrift for læger, 169 (10), 914–918.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lupton, D., 1997. Foucault and the medicalisation critique. In: A. Petersen and R. Bunton, eds. Foucault, health and medicine. London: Routledge, 94–109.
   Google Scholar
• Lupton, D., 1999. Risk. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mathieu, E., et al., 2007. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Archives of internal medicine, 167 (19), 2039–2046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milne, A., 2010. Dementia screening and early diagnosis: the case for and against. Health, risk & society, 12 (1), 65–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, S.M., 1999. Lumps in the breast: negotiating risks after a cancer diagnosis. Health, risk & society, 1 (2), 179–194.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, R., Doran, E., and Henry, D., 2008. Disease mongering is now part of the global health debate. PLoS, 5 (5), 684–686.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, R., Heath, I., and Henry, D., 2002. Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. British medical journal, 324 (7342), 886–891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, R. and Henry, D., 2006. The fight against disease mongering: generating knowledge for action. PLoS, 3 (4), 425–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Njor, S.H., et al., 2007. Predicting the risk of a false-positive test for women following a mammography screening programme. Journal of medical screening, 14, 94–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsson, P., et al., 1999. Women with false positive screening mammograms: how do they cope? Journal of medical screening, 6 (2), 89–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Opt, S.K., 2012. Mammogram-screening policy as need intervention. Journal of applied communication research, 40 (1), 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Østerlie, W., et al., 2008. Challenges of informed choice in organised screening. Journal of medical ethics, 34 (9), e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padgett, D.K., et al., 2001. The emotional consequences of false positive mammography: African-American women’s reactions in their own words. Women & health, 33 (3–4), 1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payer, L., 1992. Disease-mongers: how doctors, drug companies, and insurers are making you feel sick. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, A. and Lupton, D., 1996. The new public health. Health and self in the age of risk. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ploug, T., Holm, S., and Brodersen, J., 2012. To Nudge or not to Nudge – cancer screening programmes and the limits of libertarian paternalism. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 66 (12), 1193–1196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raffle, A. and Gray, M., 2007. Screening: evidence and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raffnsøe, S., Gudmand-Høyer, M., and Thaning, M., 2008. Foucault. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Raftery, J. and Chorozoglou, M., 2011. Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report. British medical journal, 343, d7627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rai, T., et al., 2007. What influences men’s decision to have a prostate-specific antigen test? A qualitative study. Family practice, 24 (4), 365–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajan, K., 2006. Biocapital: the constitution of postgenomic life. London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, N., 1999. Powers of freedom. Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salz, T., Richman, A.R., and Brewer, N.T., 2010. Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes. Psychooncology, 19 (10), 1026–1034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solbjør, M., et al., 2011. Experiences of recall after mammography screening – a qualitative study. Health care for women international, 32 (11), 1009–1027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stacey, J., 1997. Teratologies. A cultural study of cancer. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of qualitative research – techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Svendsen, M., 2005. Pursuing knowledge about a genetic risk of cancer. In: V. Steffen, R. Jenkins, and H. Jessen, eds. Managing uncertainty – ethnographic studies of illness, risk and the struggle for control. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Svendsen, M. and Koch, L., 2009. Between neutrality and engagement: a case study of recruitment to pharmacogenomic research in Denmark. BioSocieties, 3 (4), 1399–1418.
   Google Scholar
• Tange, U., et al., 2002. Mammografiscreening i Københavns Kommune. Populationsresultater fra de første tre screeningsrunder [Mammography screening in Copenhagen municipality. Population results from the first three screening rounds]. Ugeskrift for læger, 164 (08), 1048–1052.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The Danish Council of Ethics, 1999. Screening – en redegørelse [Screening. A review]. Copenhagen: Det Etiske Råd [The Danish Council of Ethics].
   Google Scholar
• Turner, B., 1997. Foreword: from governmentality to risk, some reflections on Foucault’s contribution to medical sociology. In: A. Petersen and R. Bunton, eds. Foucault, health and medicine. London: Routledge, ix–xxii.
   Google Scholar
• UK National Screening Committee, 2012. Programme appraisal criteria. Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme [online]. Available from: http://www.screening.nhs.uk/criteria [Accessed 12 February 2012].
   Google Scholar
• Vejborg, I., et al., 2007. Mammografiscreening i Danmark. Kliniske retningslinjer [Mammography screening in Denmark. Clinical guidelines], Danish Society of Radiology, Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Von Euler-Chelpin, M., et al., 2008. Socio-demographic determinants of participation in mammography screening. International journal of cancer, 122 (2), 418–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar