↓ Skip to main content

Waiting time and the psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography: cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Waiting time and the psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography: cohort study
Published in
Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12952-015-0028-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Heleno, Volkert Siersma, John Brodersen

Abstract

There is wide variation in the psychosocial response to false-positive mammography. We aimed to assess whether women having to wait longer to exclude cancer had increased psychosocial consequences that persisted after cancer was ruled out. We selected women with false-positive mammography (n = 272), screened for breast cancer in Copenhagen and Funen (Denmark) over a 1-year period. We measured psychosocial consequences immediately before women attended their recall visit and 1, 6, 18 and 36 months after women received their final diagnosis. After women were told that cancer had been ruled out, adverse psychosocial consequences decreased with time. We found no statistically significant differences between who had cancer ruled out immediately at the recall visit (waiting time of 0) and women who had to wait longer before cancer was ruled out (waiting times 1-30, 30-120 and > 120 days). We found no differences compared psychosocial consequences measured via a condition-specific questionnaire (Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer) at 5 time points (0, 1, 6, 18 and 36 months after cancer exclusion) and compared groups of women based on how long they had to wait until cancer exclusion. Psychosocial consequences were not associated with this waiting time. We did not confirm that waiting time was associated with worse long-term psychosocial consequences but type II error (failure to detect a true difference) might be a plausible explanation for our results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,331,767
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#65
of 112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,676
of 263,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.