Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Austoker

Publications and source records attributed to J Austoker.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review.

Concerns have been raised regarding the possible negative psychological impact of the cancer screening programmes offered in the UK. This review aims to assess the extent of and factors associated with the adverse psychological consequences of mammographic screening. Fifty-four papers from 13 countries were identified, a majority of which were published after 1990, coinciding more or less with the onset of routine mammographic screening. The results report that mammographic screening does not appear to create anxiety in women who are given a clear result after a mammogram and are subsequently placed on routine recall. However, women who have further investigations following their routine mammogram experience significant anxiety in the short term, and possibly in the long term. The nature and extent of the further investigation that women are exposed to during mammographic screening determines the intensity of the psychological impact. Factors associated with the adverse psychological impact of mammographic screening included: social demographic factors of younger age, lower education, living in urban areas, manual occupation, and one or no children; cancer screening factors of dissatisfaction with information and communication during screening process, waiting time between recall letter and recall appointment, pain experienced during the mammographic screening procedures, and previous false positive result; and cancer worry factors including fear of cancer and greater perceived risk of breast cancer. Difficulties in measuring the psychological impact of screening are discussed, and methods of alleviating the negative psychological outcomes are suggested.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2003

The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To carry out a systematic review to examine the effects of cholesterol, breast and cervical cancer screening on actual or intended health-promoting behaviours and health-related beliefs. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic databases (between 1980 and 2000). REVIEW METHODS: All English language studies that investigated the impact of cholesterol, breast and cervical screening programmes on health-promoting behaviours and beliefs were assessed for inclusion. The data extraction form and quality assessment criteria were developed using the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines. Data were extracted and a non-quantitative synthesis was conducted. Reviewers categorised the outcomes into those that could be considered beneficial or detrimental to health. This categorisation was based on a value judgement that considered both statistical and clinical significance. RESULTS: The cholesterol studies used prospective designs more frequently, possibly as many focused on observing changes in lifestyle following screening. Participants who went for breast or cervical screening were not offered advice on lifestyle changes and most of the research into cancer screening programmes investigated issues related to uptake of screening services, explanations of why people are or are not screened and interventions to improve uptake. All three screening programmes are associated with high levels of favourable health behaviours and beliefs that have been measured, although there is evidence that recommended follow-up after screening is often not adhered to. There was no literature on the cost-effectiveness regarding the wider implications of screening (only on reduction of disease-specific mortality/morbidity), possibly due to the outcomes being very broad and not easily categorised and classified. CONCLUSIONS: The studies reviewed suggest that cholesterol screening had a positive effect on health behaviours, although participation was voluntary and those screened were possibly more motivated to make changes. These results are therefore not generalisable to the entire population and other factors need to be taken into account. Reduction in blood cholesterol levels was reported in all but two of the studies that assessed this outcome, suggesting that successful lifestyle changes were made. However, as most of the studies only reported follow-up of those screened, some of the reduction can be attributable to regression to the mean. Whether breast and cervical screening affect future health behaviours and beliefs has not been directly measured in many studies and few studies have collected baseline measures. However, evidence suggests that women who attend breast and cervical screening once are likely to reattend and attendance is associated with several positive health behaviours, although it cannot be confirmed whether the associations observed were a result of screening or because these women have a certain set of health behaviours and beliefs irrespective of their experience of screening. Areas of further research include: measuring a much wider range of behaviours and beliefs before and after screening is accepted or declined, examining the subgroup of participants who receive 'desirable' results and the impact of this on health beliefs and health-promoting behaviour, and qualitative research into the experiences of screening and how this interacts with knowledge and beliefs about other aspects of health.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2002

The development of a new site-specific measure of quality of life for breast problems: the Cardiff breast scales.

The management of women presenting to primary care with symptoms of breast disease is of increasing interest given recent organisational changes aimed at improving accuracy and speed of referrals. As part of a randomised controlled trial, 1063 women were recruited following a primary care consultation for a variety of breast-related problems. In the absence of a suitable outcome measure for such women, a site-specific instrument was developed to complement a generic quality of life scale (SF-36). Items were generated using key informant interviews with health professionals. Draft scale items were piloted using a postal questionnaire and subsequent patient debrief interviews. A sample of respondents were also sent the same questionnaire I month later to assess test-retest reliability. Across the whole sample (n = 848), three factors were identified: 'general well-being', 'concerns' and 'relationships'. These factors accounted for 60% of total variance. Evidence of scale validity, reliability and responsiveness are reported for this new outcome measure for use in women presenting with breast problems.

Breast Diseases↗
PubMed2001

A study of GP referrals to a family cancer clinic for breast/ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the appropriateness of primary care referrals to the Oxford Regional Genetics Service on account of a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer and to explore GPs' expectations following a referral. METHODS: Fifty consecutive GP referrers were sent a questionnaire post-referral, and their referral letters were reviewed. RESULTS: The study achieved a high response rate (94%) and showed that many GPs did not know which patients warrant referral to the genetics service and that they had unrealistic expectations of what happens at the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: If GPs are to fulfil their gatekeeper role effectively, and possibly become more involved in the delivery of genetic services in the future, it is clear that they require further education in this area.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2001

New developments in genetics-knowledge, attitudes and information needs of practice nurses.

BACKGROUND: In response to increased referrals to geneticists and the predicted patient demand for genetic counselling, it has been proposed that some genetics services should be provided in primary care. Practice nurses are ideally placed to collect family history information and advise patients accordingly in new patient, family planning, well women/men and chronic disease clinics, but little is known about their knowledge, skills and attitudes towards providing genetic advice. OBJECTIVES: The survey aimed to measure the current situation with regard to: the prevalence of family history recording by practice nurses; confidence in collecting and acting upon family history; and practice nurses' knowledge about familial disorders and genetics. It also investigated what practice nurses think their role should be in relation to the delivery of genetic services; their educational needs; and the most appropriate ways of delivering training/support. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was carried out of all practices nurses (n = 909) in four Health Authorities in England (Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Nottingham and North Nottinghamshire) and one Health Board in Scotland (Lothian). Analyses were primarily descriptive. RESULTS: A total of 600 nurses (response rate = 66.0%) returned a completed questionnaire. Ninety-six per cent of practice nurses reported that they routinely collect family history information. Over half of the respondents had been consulted in the previous 3 months by patients with a worry about family history of cancer. Approximately 60% of nurses felt confident about collecting the relevant details regarding a family history of breast cancer but felt less confident in collecting the information regarding familial colorectal cancer. Nurses were also unsure how to proceed, with over a third of nurses referring patients to the GP even if they thought the patient was at population risk or, conversely, not referring those that they thought were at considerably higher risk to the GP. There was a reported need for education about familial disease in general and overall agreement that nurses could play a role in genetics in primary care. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of considerable activity from practice nurses regarding routine collection of family history. There is a need for further education for practice nurses regarding family history information and the new genetics so that this information is managed appropriately.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2001

Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance.

BACKGROUND: In 1995-1996 a study was commenced investigating the experience of 'false-positive' women, i.e. who had undergone further investigations following routine breast screening and received a clear final result. These women were found to experience significantly greater adverse psychological consequences at 1 month, 5 months and 11 months after assessment compared with women who received a clear result after the initial basic mammogram. The present study follows up these 'false-positive' women 3 years later (at 35 months) just before being invited for their next routine breast screening. It investigates the effect of the previous experience of breast screening on adverse psychological consequences reported by false-positive women at this time, and explores factors that may be associated with the current adverse psychological consequences. Factors influencing attendance for the forthcoming appointment are reported, and the non-attendance rate is monitored. METHODS: Women who had previously completed a questionnaire 1 month, 5 months and 11 months after their last breast screening 3 years ago, were invited to complete a postal questionnaire just before being invited to attend for their next routine mammogram 3 years later. Attendance for this appointment was monitored. A brief questionnaire was sent to non-attenders to ascertain their reasons for not attending. RESULTS: The response rate was 77 per cent (387/505). Women who, at their last routine breast screening, had received a clear result after fine needle aspiration (FNA) at assessment, after a surgical biopsy or after a 6 month early recall appointment, all suffered significantly greater adverse psychological consequences at 1 month before returning for routine breast screening 3 years later than women who had received a clear result after the initial mammogram at their last routine breast screening. They were between 1.7 and 2 times more likely to suffer psychological consequences than women who received a clear result after their last mammogram. Women who had received a clear result at assessment without undergoing FNA reported higher psychological consequences than those who received a clear result after mammography, but the difference was not significant (relative risk 1.28, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.82-2.00). Fifteen per cent of those who had undergone assessment 3 years earlier did not attend their next routine breast screening appointment compared with 8 per cent of those who received a clear result after mammography (p = 0.035). Factors associated with adverse psychological consequences are reported. CONCLUSION: Despite having received a final clear result during their previous routine breast screening 3 years ago, women who had undergone FNA, surgical biopsy or been placed on early recall suffered significantly greater adverse psychological consequences at 1 month before their next routine breast screening appointment than women who had received a clear result after their initial mammogram at their last routine breast screening. Having undergone further investigations did not necessarily motivate women to attend for their next routine appointment, with 15 per cent of these women not returning for routine screening 3 years on.

Anxiety↗
PubMed2001

Cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two interventions based in primary care aimed at increasing uptake of breast screening. SETTING: 24 General practices with low uptake in the second round of screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, UK. Participants were all women registered with these practices and eligible for screening in the third round. METHODS: Pragmatic factorial cluster randomised controlled trial, with practices randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after the practices had been screened and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: 6,133 Women were included: 1,721 control; 1,818 letter; 1,232 flag; 1,362 both interventions. Attendance data were obtained for 5,732 (93%) women. The two interventions independently increased breast screening uptake in a logistic regression model adjusted for clustering, with the flag (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.79; p=0.0019) marginally more effective than the letter (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.64; p=0.015). Health service costs per additional attendance were 26 pounds (letter) and 41 pounds (flag). CONCLUSIONS: Although both interventions increased attendance for breast screening, the letter was the more cost-effective. Any decision to implement both interventions rather than just the letter will depend on whether the additional (41 pounds) costs are judged worthwhile in terms of the gains in breast screening uptake.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2001

Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care based interventions aimed at increasing breast screening uptake for women who had recently failed to attend. SETTING: 13 General practices with low uptake in the second round of breast screening (below 60%) in north west London and the West Midlands, United Kingdom. Participants were women in these practices who were recent non-attenders for breast screening in the third round. METHODS: Pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial, with people randomised to a systematic intervention (general practitioner letter), an opportunistic intervention (flag in women's notes prompting discussion by health professionals), neither intervention, or both. Outcome measures were attendance for screening 6 months after randomisation and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: 1,158 Women were individually randomised as follows: 289 control; 291 letter; 290 flag; 288 both interventions. Attendance was ascertained for 1,148 (99%) of the 1,158 women. Logistic regression adjusting for the other intervention and practice produced an odds ratio (OR) for attendance of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (95% CI 1.02 to 2.26; p=0.04) for the letter, and 1.39 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.10) for the flag. Health service costs/ additional attendance were 35 pounds (letter) and 65 pounds (flag). CONCLUSIONS: Among recent non-attenders, the letter was effective in increasing breast screening attendance. The flag was of equivocal effectiveness and was considerably less cost-effective than the letter.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Evaluation of the impact of two educational interventions on GP management of familial breast/ovarian cancer cases: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that primary care should become more involved in providing genetic services, such as basic risk assessment, to enable patients with a moderate/high risk to be referred and those with a low risk to receive reassurance and advice from their general practitioner (GP). However, GPs currently lack knowledge and confidence in this area. AIM: To investigate the effect of an in-practice educational session and information pack on GP management of familial breast/ovarian cancer cases. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: GP principals in 170 practices in Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire. Of the 688 GPs, 426 (62%) participated. METHOD: Practices were randomised either to Group A (receiving an inpractice educational session plus information pack), Group B (receiving an information pack alone), or Group C (receiving neither an educational session nor a pack). The main study outcome was the proportion of GPs making the correct referral decision on at least five out of six family history vignettes. A secondary outcome was GPs' reported confidence in managing patients with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer, measured by a score that was generated by combining responses to four questions. RESULTS: There was a 40% (95% CI = 30-50%, P < 0.001) improvement in the proportion of GPs who made the correct referral decision on at least five out of the six vignettes in Group A (111/140 [79%]) compared with Group C (controls) (63/162 [39%]), and a 42% (95% CI = 31-52%, P < 0.001) improvement in Group B (100/124 [81%]) compared with the control group. There was a trend in reported confidence in the management of individuals with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer from a mean confidence score of 2.3 in Group A to 2.0 in Group B and 1.5 in Group C (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Providing GPs with an information pack significantly improved referral decisions regarding patients with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer. Although extremely well received, an in-house educational session produced no additional improvements. There were, however, greater levels of reported confidence in the group who received the educational session in addition to the information pack.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2001

Development of a protocol for evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women under 50 with a family history of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary retrospective data suggest it is possible to identify impalpable breast cancer in women presenting with a family history of breast cancer under the age of 50, by using regular mammography. In consequence, this service is offered in a number of centres in the UK. The effectiveness of such a service, however, has not been fully evaluated. METHODS: We propose to perform such an evaluation in a cohort of 20000 women under the age of 50 with a significant family history of breast cancer, given regular mammographic surveillance over 5 years. Comparison of surgical and pathological data with completed and ongoing population screening trials using analysis techniques of varying complexity will be performed to obtain an accurate prediction of future breast-cancer mortality reduction. The formal aims are: i) to estimate the difference in breast-cancer mortality in women under the age of 50 with a significant family history of breast cancer having regular mammography, compared with those not being screened; ii) to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regular mammography in this group of women, compared with no screening. The increase in health service resource use attributable to such a policy will be compared with no screening, and costed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of implementing the standardised mammography strategy compared with no screening will be presented in terms of the additional cost per cancer detected, per life saved and per life-year saved.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Computer support for interpreting family histories of breast and ovarian cancer in primary care: comparative study with simulated cases.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential effect of computer support on general practitioners' management of familial breast and ovarian cancer, and to compare the effectiveness of two different types of computer program. DESIGN: Crossover experiment with balanced block design. PARTICIPANTS: Of a random sample of 100 general practitioners from Buckinghamshire who were invited, 41 agreed to participate. From these, 36 were selected for a fully balanced study. INTERVENTIONS: Doctors managed 18 simulated cases: 6 with computerised decision support system Risk Assessment in Genetics (RAGs), 6 with Cyrillic (an established pedigree drawing program designed for clinical geneticists), and 6 with pen and paper. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of appropriate management decisions made (maximum 6), mean time taken to reach a decision, number of pedigrees accurately drawn (maximum 6). Secondary measures were method of support preferred for particular aspects of managing family histories of cancer; importance of specific information on cancer genetics that might be provided by an "ideal computer program." RESULTS: RAGs resulted in significantly more appropriate management decisions (median 6) than either Cyrillic (median 3) or pen and paper (median 3); median difference between RAGs and Cyrillic 2.5 (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 3.0; P<0.0001). RAGs also resulted in significantly more accurate pedigrees (median 5) than both Cyrillic (median 3.5) and pen and paper (median 2); median difference between RAGs and Cyrillic 1.5 (1.0 to 2.0; P<0.0001). The time taken to use RAGs (median 178 seconds) was 51 seconds longer per case (95% confidence interval 36 to 65; P<0.0001) than pen and paper (median 124 seconds) but was less than Cyrillic (median 203 seconds; difference 23. (5 to 43; P=0.02)). 33 doctors (92% (78% to 98%)) preferred using RAGs overall. The most important elements of an "ideal computer program" for genetic advice in primary care were referral advice, the capacity to create pedigrees, and provision of evidence and explanations to support advice. CONCLUSIONS: RAGs could enable general practitioners to be more effective gatekeepers to genetics services, empowering them to reassure the majority of patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer who are not at increased genetic risk.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed1999

The 'new genetics' and primary care: GPs' views on their role and their educational needs.

BACKGROUND: Given the limited specialist resources available to cope with the rising demand for genetic services, it has been proposed that at least some of these services are provided by primary care in the future. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore GPs' attitudes towards new developments in genetics, to establish the role they envisage for primary care and to clearly define the education, information and training needed to support them in this role. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative study with GPs using four focus groups (26 GPs) and 15 individual semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: GPs perceive genetics as an important and increasingly relevant topic for primary care. Views on the appropriate level of involvement for primary care are mixed. GPs currently lack the relevant knowledge and skills to manage patients concerned about their family history. Other potential barriers to increasing primary care involvement included the time and costs involved, and ethical and legal concerns. CONCLUSION: If primary care is to become more involved in the delivery of genetic services in the future, then a major educational effort is required to raise awareness of the potential scope and limitations of new developments.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1998

Quality assurance in screening programmes.

All screening programmes do harm; some also do good. The responsibility of the policy-maker is to decide which programmes do more good than harm at reasonable cost and then introduce them, once they are confident that the screening programme could and will reach the standard of quality required for success. The ratio of benefit to harm is not, however, constant and this relationship demonstrates a shifting balance.

Humans↗
PubMed1998

Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment.

BACKGROUND: In 1995-1996 about 53500 women aged 50-64 attending for routine breast screening were called back for further investigation after an initial mammogram. Even when women were found to be clear after further investigation, significant adverse psychological consequences (PCs) can remain one month later. This follow-up study investigates whether residual emotional effects persisted five months after women received a clear result. METHODS: Women who had previously completed a questionnaire one month after their last breast screening appointment, at which they had a clear result, were invited to complete a further postal questionnaire four months later (five months after their last appointment). We compare women who received a clear result after assessment without fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), after assessment with FNAC, after a benign biopsy, and those who had been placed on early recall, with those who received a clear result after mammography (reference group). RESULTS: The response rate was 76 per cent (215/284). All groups of women who went on for further investigation suffered significantly greater adverse psychological consequences (PCs) at five months than women who were given a clear result after mammography. Compared with 10 per cent (5/52) of women who received a clear result after a basic mammogram, adverse psychological consequences were experienced by 59 per cent (27/46, p<0.00001) of the women who were placed on six month early recall, 61 per cent (14/23, p<0.0001) of women who had benign surgical biopsy, 44 per cent (18/41, p<0.0001) of women who received a clear result after assessment (with FNAC), and 45 per cent (23/51, p<0.0001) of women who received a clear result after assessment (without FNAC). Whereas all groups who had gone on for further investigations had experienced a significant decrease in PCs between one month and five months, those who were placed on six month early recall showed no significant difference in PCs between these two time periods. Other factors relating to adverse experiences as a result of breast screening are reported. CONCLUSION: Despite receiving a clear final result, women who undergo further investigation suffer significantly greater adverse psychological consequences five months after their last screening appointment than women who receive a clear result after mammography.

Adaptation, Psychological↗