Study/author year (funding) | Design | N | Participants | Intervention group | Control group | Outcomes | Length of follow-up | Exclusion criteria | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Psychological impact | |||||||||
Brett and Austoker, 2001 (Cancer Research Campaign) | Prospective cohort multicentre Psychological impact | 505 | Women invited for routine screening by mammogram, already participating in the study at 5 months | Routine screening by mammogram with a false-positive result N=375 | Routine screening by mammogram with a normal result N=130 | PCQ intention to reattend and actual reattendance satisfaction with service ad hoc questionnaire | 3 years (35 months) after assessment | Over 65 years, symptomatic referral, in another study, developed cancer | |
Brett et al, 1998 (Cancer Research Campaign) | Prospective cohort multicentre Psychological impact | 284 | Women invited for routine screening by mammogram, already participating in the study at 1 month | Routine screening by mammogram with a false-positive result N=163 | Routine screening by mammogram with a normal result N=52 | PCQ, intention to reattend, ad hoc questionnaire | 5 months after assessment | As above | 69 (24%) women chose not to return the questionnaire |
Ong et al, 1997a (Cancer Research Campaign, NHSBSP) | Prospective cohort multicentre Psychological impact | 877 | Women invited for routine screening by mammogram recalled for assessment | Women placed on early recall (<3 years) N=182 | Women placed on routine recall after mammography (N=173), further mammography assessment (N=166), FNA (N=109) or biopsy (N=31) | PCQ | 1 month after assessment | Not reported | This study was primarily about the effects of early recall on women who had been recalled after their mammogram |
Bull and Campbell, 1991 (Yorkshire Regional Health Authority) | Prospective cohort Psychological impact | 750 | Women invited for routine screening by mammogram recalled for assessment | Routine screening by mammogram with a false-positive result N=308 | Routine screening by mammogram with a normal result N=420 | Ad hoc questionnaire including frequency of breast self-examination HADS | 6 weeks after the ‘all clear’ | Not reported | It is not known if the women had previously had cancer or were in a high risk group |
Ellman et al, 1989 (DHSS Research Management Division) | Prospective cohort Psychological impact | 752 | Women invited for routine mammogram screening and those recalled for further assessment and those with symptoms being further investigated | Routine screening by mammogram with a false-positive result N=271 | Routine screening by mammogram with a normal result N=295 , symptomatic women who did not have cancer N=134, symptomatic or recalled screened women who did have cancer N=38, history of breast cancer with or without symptoms N=14 | GHQ-28, ad hoc questionnaire | 3 months after clinic attendance | Not reported | Participants also received clinical examination. Only those groups meeting the inclusion criteria will be considered in this systematic review |
Impact on reattendance | |||||||||
McCann et al, 2002 (NHS Executive Eastern Region) | Retrospective cohort Reattendance and interval cancer | 140387 | Women 49–63 years invited for routine breast screening by mammography | Routine screening by mammogram with a false-positive result N=4 792 | Routine screening by mammogram with a normal result N=108 617 | Subsequent attendance at routine screening after a false-positive result and rate of interval cancer—from records | 3 years | Women who were older than 63 years at follow-up | |
O'Sullivan et al, 2001 (Cancer Research Campaign) | Retrospective cohort Reattendance | 5649 | Women invited for mammography screening for the second or more time | Routine screening by mammogram with a false-positive result N=248 | Routine screening by mammogram with a normal result N=5401 | Subsequent attendance at routine screening after a false-positive result—from records | Unclear, probably from 1989 to 1997 | Women invited for the first time and women who had been previously invited but had never attended | Effects of a false-positive result on reattendance for those on early recall and routine recall |
Brett and Austoker, 2001 (Cancer Research Campaign) | As above in psychological impact | ||||||||
Brett et al, 1998 (Cancer Research Campaign) | As above in psychological impact | ||||||||
Meldrum, 1994 (Scottish Office Home and Health Department) | RCT-nested telephone interview study | 3083 | All women invited for second round routine mammography screening (50–65 years) | Tailored invitation with a false-positive result N=115 and with normal result N=800 | Standard invitation with a false-positive result N=112 and with a normal result N=791 | Subsequent attendance at routine screening and effect of a tailored invitation on subgroups | Not reported | Women with breast cancer and those whose screening history was not available | Trial comparing the effect of a tailored invitation on second round screening attendance with a standard invitation |
Orton, 1991 (funding not reported) | Retrospective cohort Reattendance | 1582 | Women, aged 45–64, invited to attend for second round screening by mammography | Routine screening by mammogram with a false-positive result N=50 | Routine screening by mammogram with a normal result N=1532 | Reattendance acceptability of screening | NA | Not reported | Data are not available for the acceptability of screening for false-positive participants |
FNA, fine needle aspiration; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; NA, not applicable; PCQ, Psychological Consequences Questionnaire; RCT, randomized controlled trial.