Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Perceived ambiguity about screening mammography recommendations: Association with future mammography uptake and perceptions

  • Paul K.J. Han(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Sarah C. Kobrin
    ,
  • William M.P. Klein
    ,
  • William W. Davis
    ,
  • Michael Stefanek
    ,
  • Steven H. Taplin
*Corresponding author for this work
  • National Institutes of Health
    ,
  • University of Pittsburgh
    ,
  • American Cancer Society
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well

Abstract

Conflicting expert recommendations regarding cancer screening and prevention are growing in number, visibility, and importance, but their impact are not well understood. In this study, we examined the impact of conflicting recommendations about mammography screening on women's mammography behavior and perceptions. We conducted a secondary analysis of longitudinal data from the 1995 Maximizing Mammography Participation Trial, a large randomized interventional trial examining the effectiveness of patient reminders in increasing mammography utilization among women ages 50 to 79. Using the decision theory concept of "ambiguity" as an analytic framework, we tested several predictions about the effects of conflicting recommendations regarding mammography recommendations on behavior, cognitions, and emotions related to mammography screening. We found high perceived ambiguity about mammography recommendations to be associated with both diminished uptake of mammography over time [odds ratio (OR), 0.42; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.23-0.76; P < 0.0001] and lower intentions for future mammography (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.55; P < 0.0001). High perceived ambiguity also predicted greater mammography-related worry over time (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.79-3.78; P < 0.0001). These findings suggest that conflicting recommendations regarding cancer screening and prevention have important effects, and we discuss the implications of these findings for future research.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 458-466 (9 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention (Volume 16, Issue 3)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 03/2007

Publication status

Published - 03/2007

ISSN

1055-9965

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 34047258664
  • PubMed: 17372241

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
citations
SciVal
citations
59
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.17
Fractional count
5
Fractional count
0.83
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
SciVal
FWCI
0.99
SciVal
Author count
6
SciVal
Paper percentile
90
SciVal
Top percentile
10

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
65
Citation count
74