Læknablaðið - 15.02.2000, Blaðsíða 36

FRÆÐIGREINAR / KRABBAMEIN
Viðauki I
Til að fá vitneskju um mætingarsögu þátttakenda í brjóstamyndatöku og ætlun þeirra
að mæta voru lagðar fyrir eftirfarandi spurningar:
* i. Hefur þú farið í brjóstamyndatöku? (svarmöguleikar frá 0 (aldrei) til 5 (fimm
sinnum eða oftar).
* ii. Ef þú hefur farið í brjóstamyndatöku (a) hvenær fórst þú síðast (svona um það
bil)? (b) hvenær fórst þú þar á undan (svona um það bil)?
* iii. Hyggst þú panta þér tíma í brjóstamyndatöku í náinni framtíð? (a) ég ætla ekki
að panta tíma næstu þijú árin (b) ég ætla ekki að panta tíma innan næstu tveggja
ára (c) ég ætla að panta tíma innan næstu tveggja ára. Hvenær? (d) ég hef nú
þegar pantað tíma.
Heimildir
1. Skýrsla 1999. Reykjavík: Krabbameinsfélagið; 1999.
2. Lífshorfur fólks með krabbamein hafa batnað. Heilbrigðismál
1992; 3 (40): 6-7.
3. Dodd GD. Screening for breast cancer. Cancer 1993; 72/
Suppl.: 1038-42.
4. Nyström L, Ruthqvist LE, Wall S, Lindgren A, Lindqvist M,
Ryden S. Breast cancer screening with mammography: Over-
view of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 1993; 341: 973-8.
5. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin S, Sandrock C, Ernester V.
Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA
1995; 273:149-54.
6. U.K. Trial. First results on mortality reduction in the UK trial
of early detection of breast cancer. Lancet 1988; 2: 411-6.
7. Anderson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K,
Linelli F, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from
breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. Br
Med J 1988; 279: 943-8.
8. Tabár L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Gröntoft O.
Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammograp-
hic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;
30:187-210.
9. Lidbrink E, Frisell J, Brandberg Y, Rosendahl I, Rutqvist L-E.
Nonattendance in the Stockholm mammography screening
trial: relative mortality and reason for nonattendance. Breast
Cancer Res Treat 1995; 35: 267-75.
10. Tabár L, Gad A. Screening for breast cancer: The Swedish
trial. Radiology 1981; 138: 219-22.
11. de Koning HJ, Fracheboud J, Boer R, Verbeek ALM, Collette
HJA, Hendriks JHCL. Nationwide breast screening in The
Netherlands: Support for breast cancer mortality reduction.
Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 777-80.
12. Dawson DA, Thompson GB. Breast cancer risk factors and
screening: United States 1987. DHHS Publication No. (OHS)
90-1500. Hyattsville, MD. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services; 1990:1-33.
13. Marchant DJ, Sutton SM. Use of mammography - United
States, 1990. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Re-
port 1990; 30: 621-30.
14. Rimer BK, Keintz MK, Kessler HB, Engstrom PF, Rosan JR.
Why women resist screening mammography: Patient-related
barriers. Radiology 1989; 172: 243-6.
15. Fox SA, Murata PJ, Stein JA. The impact of physician compli-
ance on screening mammography for older women. Arch Int
Med 1991; 151: 50-6.
16. Keefe FJ, Hauck E, Egert J, Rimer B, Kornguth P. Mammo-
graphy pain and discomfort: a cognitive-behavioral perspec-
tive. Pain 1994; 56: 247-60.
17. Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Women's attitudes to screening after
participation in The National Breast Screening Study. A
questionnaire survey. Cancer 1990; 66; 1663-9.
18. Tessaro I, Eng E, Smith J. Breast cancer screening in older Af-
rican-American women: qualitative research findings. Am J
Health Promotin 1994; 8: 286-93.
19. Rimer BK, Trock B, Lerman C, King E, Engsrol PF. Why do
some women get regular mammograms? Am J Preventive
Med 1991; 7: 76-81.
20. Champion VL. The relationship of selected variables to breast
cancer detection behaviors in women 35 and older. Oncol
Nurs Forum 1991; 18: 733-9.
21. Tryggvadóttir L. Könnun á viðhorfum íslenskra kvenna til
leitarstarfs Krabbameinsfélags íslands 1997. Reykjavík: Töl-
vinnustofa Krabbameinsfélags íslands; 1997.
22. Rakowski W, Fulton JP, Feldman JP. Stages-of-adoption and
women's decision-making about mammography. Health Psyc-
hol 1993; 12: 209-14.
23. Rakowski W, Dube CE, Goldstein MG. Consideration for
Extending the Transthoretical Model of Behavior Change to
Screening Mammography. Health Edu Res 1996; 11: 77-96.
24. Rakowski W, Ehrich B, Dubé CE, Pearlman DN, Goldstein
MG, Peterson KK, et al. Screening Mammography and con-
structs from the Transtheoretical Model: Associations using
Two Definitons of the Stages of Adoption. Ann Behavioral
Med 1996; 18: 91-100.
25. Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Evers KE. The Transtheoretical
Model and Stages of Change. In: Glanz K, Marcus Lewis F,
Rimer BK, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education:
Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers; 1997.
26. Bakker DA, Lighfood NE, Steggels S, Jackson C. The experi-
ence and satisfaction of women attending breast cancer scree-
ning. Oncol Nurs Forum 1998; 25:115-21.
27. Mettler FA, Upton AC, Kersley CA, Ashby RN, Rosenberg
RD, Linver MN. Benefits versus risks from mammography. A
critical reassessment. Cancer 1996; 77: 903-9.
28. Feig SA. Assessment of radiation risk from screening mammo-
graphy. Cancer 1996; 77: 818-22.
29. Lidbrink E. Mammographic screening for breast cancer - as-
pects on benefits and risks [doctoral dissertation]. Stockholm:
Department of Clinical Oncology, Södersjukhuset and Radi-
umhemmet, Karolinska Institutet; 1995: p. 25.
30. Tokunaga M, Land C, Tukapka S, Nishimori I, Soda M, Akiba
S. Incidence of female breast cancer in atomic bomb survivors,
1950-1985. Radiat Res 1994; 138: 209-23.
31. Mattson A, Ruben B, Hall P, Wiling N, Rudqvist LE. Radia-
tion - induced breast cancer: Long-term follow up of radiation
theraphy for breast cancer. I Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 1679-
85.
32. Guðmundsdóttir P. Hópleit - árangursrík aðferð? Tímarit
hjúkrunarfræðinga 1997; 73: 77-82.
33. Cockburn J, Crawson J, Hill D, DeLuise T. An analysis of re-
ported discomfort caused by mammographic X-ray amongst
attenders at an Australian pilot breast screening program.
Aust Radiol 1992; 36:115-9.
34. Day NE, ,Williams DRR, Khaw KT. Breast cancer screening
programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation
system. Br J Cancer 1989; 59: 954-8.
35. Rimer BK. Mammography use in the U.S.: Trends and the Im-
pact of Interventions. Ann Behavioral Med 1994; 4: 317-25.
114 Læknablaðið 2000/86