Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleSpecial Communications

Promoting Screening Mammography: Insight or Uptake?

John D. Keen
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2010, 23 (6) 775-782; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2010.06.100065
John D. Keen
MD, MBA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

References

  1. ↵
    Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A. Prevalence of breast carcinoma in situ in the United States. JAMA 2009; 302: 846–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Peres J. Mammography screening: after the storm, calls for more personalized approaches. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 9–11.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 727–37, W237–742.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    Marshall E. Public health. Brawling over mammography. Science 2010; 327: 936–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG. US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross-sectional survey. BMJ 2000; 320: 1635–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Stefanek ME, Gritz ER, Vernon SW. Mammography and women under 50: déjà vu all over again? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 635–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Fogelin RJ. Understanding arguments: an introduction to informal logic. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1982.
  8. ↵
    Brinker NG. With breast screenings, every woman counts. USA Today 7 December 2009:Opinion;9A.
  9. ↵
    Javitt MC. Breast cancer awareness: taking charge of women's health. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 947.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Garton C. NFL players proudly wear pink. USA Today 7 October 2009. Available at: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/kindness/post/2009/10/nfl-players-proudly-wear-pink-/1. Accessed 16 September 2010.
  11. ↵
    Avon Foundation for Women. Early detection saves lives: breast health resource guide—information, support and resources to use and share. 8th ed. Available at: http://www.avoncompany.com/women/avoncrusade/bccguide.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2010.
  12. ↵
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Know your chances: understanding health statistics. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2008.
  13. ↵
    Keen JD, Keen JE. What is the point: will screening mammography save my life? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009; 9: 18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Harvey JA, Strahilevitz MA. The power of pink: cause-related marketing and the impact on breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6: 26–32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    Breast-cancer awareness: too much of a good thing? Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 1041.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    Domenighetti G, D’Avanzo B, Egger M, et al. Women's perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population-based survey in four countries. Int J Epidemiol 2003; 32: 816–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1216–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 1993; 341: 973–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 605–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Kramer BS, Croswell JM. Cancer screening: the clash of science and intuition. Annu Rev Med 2009; 60: 125–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 2009; 302: 1685–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    Berg WA. Benefits of screening mammography. JAMA 2010; 303: 168–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60: 99–119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Gotzsche PC, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Brodersen J, Jorgensen KJ. Breast screening: the facts–or maybe not. BMJ 2009; 338: b86.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Heath I. Life and death. It is not wrong to say no. BMJ 2009; 338: b2529.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (4): CD001877.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 2009; 339: b2587.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Jorgensen KJ, Zahl PH, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in organised mammography screening in Denmark. A comparative study. BMC Womens Health 2009; 9: 36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Morrell S, Barratt A, Irwig L, Howard K, Biesheuvel C, Armstrong B. Estimates of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control 2010; 21: 275–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    Sackett DL. The arrogance of preventive medicine. CMAJ 2002; 167: 363–4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    American Cancer Society guidelines still advise yearly mammography for women aged 40–49 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 187–8.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    Partridge AH, Winer EP. On mammography–more agreement than disagreement. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 2499–501.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    Berlin L, Hall FM. More mammography muddle: emotions, politics, science, costs, and polarization. Radiology 2010; 255: 311–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    Thrall JH. US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for screening mammography: evidence-based medicine or the death of science? J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 2–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Kent A. Mammography screening. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009; 2: 199–200.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The risk of death by age, sex, and smoking status in the United States: putting health risks in context. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 845–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health. Statistical research and applications. Cancer query system: probability of developing or dying of cancer. Available at: http://srab.cancer.gov/devcan/canques.html. Accessed 5 June 2010.
  38. ↵
    Barratt A, Howard K, Irwig L, Salkeld G, Houssami N. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. BMJ 2005; 330: 936.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    Veronesi A, Serraino D. Screening: is breast cancer overdiagnosed? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2009; 6: 682–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. Welch HG. Overdiagnosis and mammography screening. BMJ 2009; 339: b1425.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  41. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs. JAMA 2010; 303: 164–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 368: 2053–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    National Cancer Institute, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Performance measures for 3,884,059 screening mammography examinations from 1996 to 2007 by age. Available at: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/performance/screening/perf_age.html. Accessed 25 May 2010.
  44. ↵
    Mathis KL, Hoskin TL, Boughey JC, et al. Palpable presentation of breast cancer persists in the era of screening mammography. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210: 314–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    Nekhlyudov L, Braddock CH 3rd. An approach to enhance communication about screening mammography in primary care. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2009; 18: 1403–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Gotzsche PC, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Brodersen J. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. 2008. Available at: http://www.cochrane.dk/screening/mammography-leaflet.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2010.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: 23 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 23, Issue 6
November-December 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Promoting Screening Mammography: Insight or Uptake?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 13 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Promoting Screening Mammography: Insight or Uptake?
John D. Keen
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2010, 23 (6) 775-782; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.06.100065

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Promoting Screening Mammography: Insight or Uptake?
John D. Keen
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2010, 23 (6) 775-782; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.06.100065
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • This Issue: International Issues, Infectious Diseases, Medical Liability, and Medical Home Ideas
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Integrating Community and Clinical Data to Assess Patient Risks with A Population Health Assessment Engine (PHATE)
  • Primary Care Is an Essential Ingredient to a Successful Population Health Improvement Strategy
  • Hepatitis C Update and Expanding the Role of Primary Care
Show more Special Communications

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire