Insurance repercussions of mammographic screening: What do women think? [3]

Medical Science Monitor

Volumn 8, Issue 12, 2002, Pages

  Davey, Claire ^b   White, Victoria ^b   Ward, Jeanette E ^a  

^a SYDNEY SOUTH WEST AREA HEALTH SERVICE   (Australia)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST DUCT; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LETTER; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; RATING SCALE;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR FAMILY; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 0036959921     PISSN: 12341010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Letter

References (7)

1. Bluman LG, Borstelmann NA, Rimer BK et al: Knowledge, satisfaction, and perceived cancer risk among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Womens Health Gend Based Med, 2001; 10(6): 589-98
2. Thornton H: Pairing accountability with responsibility - the consequences of screening promotion. Med Sci Monit, 2001; 7(3): 531-533
3. Thornton H: Consequences of breast screening. Lancet, 2000; 356(9234): 1033
4. Laurance J: Insurers use of genetic histories to be questioned. The Independent, 2000 Friday 29 December; pp. 9
5. Young J, D'Este C, Ward J: Improving family physicians use of evidence-based smoking cessation strategies: a cluster randomization trial. Preventive Medicine, 2002, In press.
6. O'Connor AM: Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making, 1995; 15(1): 25-30
7. Tabar L, Vitak B, Tony HH et al: Beyond randomized controlled trials: Organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer, 2001; 91: 1724-31