Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Client-Practitioner Interactions within Breast Care Services

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Digital Mammography

  • 3224 Accesses

Abstract

United Kingdom (UK) breast care services are delivered within one of two models. Clients presenting with breast symptoms (symptomatic) are assessed within a ‘one stop’ (all done at one hospital attendance) out-patient setting whilst asymptomatic clients currently aged 50–70 (screening) are invited for 3 yearly breast screening by the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). A proportion of the latter are recalled for further assessment should a mammographic abnormality be suspected (assessment clients). Many other health care systems around the world also offer these three breast care approaches (symptomatic, screening and assessment services), though the timeframe between screening invitations and the age range of clients varies within the screening services (see Chap. 8).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. NHS Breast Screening Programme. Quality assurance guidelines for mammography: Including radiographic quality control. April 2006. ISBN 1 84463 028 5. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp63.html. Accessed 18 Aug 14.

  2. National Cancer Peer Review Programme. Manual for cancer services: breast cancer measures version 1.1. 2014. http://www.cquins.nhs.uk/. Accessed 27 Aug 2014.

  3. National Cancer Peer Review Programme. Report 2009/2010: Breast MDTs. http://www.cquins.nhs.uk/download.php?d=/resources/reports/NCAT_NCPR_Breast_Report_2010-11.pdf.

  4. National Cancer Peer Review Programme. Report 2012/2013: Breast MDTs. http://www.cquins.nhs.uk/documents/resources/reports/2013/Breast%20NCPR%20Report%20September%202013.pdf.

  5. Clark S, Reeves PJ. Women’s experiences of the breast cancer diagnostic process: A thematic evaluation of the literature; Recall & biopsy. Radiography. 2015;21(1):89–92.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davey B. Pain during mammography: possible risk factors and ways to alleviate pain. Radiography. 2007;13(3):229–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sharp PC, Michielutte R, Freimanis R, Cunningham L, Spangler J, Burnette V. Reported pain following mammography screening. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(7):833–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Murphy F, Nightingale J, Robinson L, Mackay S, Seddon D, Hogg P. Compression force behaviours: an exploration of the beliefs and values influencing the application of breast compression during screening mammography. Radiography. 2014. Accepted and in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.05.009.

  9. Nightingale J, Murphy F, Newton-Hughes A, Robinson L, Hogg P. Breast compression – an exploration of problem solving and decision making in mammography. Radiography. 2014. Ahead of print.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Poulos A, McLean D, Rickard M, Heard R. Breast compression in mammography; how much is enough? J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2003;47(2):121–6.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bai JY, He ZY, Dong JN, Yao GH, Chen HX, Li KA. Correlation of pain experience during mammography with factors of breast density and breast compressed thickness. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ (Med Sci). 2010;30(9):1062–6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Poulos A. Having a mammogram: how does it feel? The Radiogr. 2004;51:129–31.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mathers SA, McKenzie GA, Robertson EM. ‘It was daunting’: experience of women with a diagnosis of breast cancer attending for breast imaging. Radiography. 2013;19(2):156–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dibble SL, Israel J, Nussey B, Sayre JW, Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Mammography with breast cushions. Womens Health Issues. 2005;15(2):55–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Miller D, Livingstone V, Herbison PG. Interventions for relieving the pain and discomfort of screening mammography. Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects (DARE). http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD002942/frame.html. Accessed 26 July 2013.

  16. Robinson L, Hogg P, Newton-Hughes A. The power and the pain: mammographic compression research from the service-users’ perspective. Radiography. 2013;19:190–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Clarke KA, Iphofen R. Breast cancer: a personal reflective account. Synergy. 2006:12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bruyninckx E, Mortelmans D, Van Goethem M, Van Hove E. Risk factors of pain in mammographic screening. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(7):933–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mercer CE, Hogg P, Szczepura K, Denton ERE.Practitioner compression force variation in mammography: a 6-year study. Radiography. 2013;19(3):200–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jafri NF, Ayyala RS, Ozonoff A, Jordan-Gray J, Slanetz PJ. Screening mammography: does ethnicity influence patient preferences for higher recall rates given the potential for earlier detection of breast cancer? Radiology. 2008;249(3):785–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilkinson JE, Deis CE, Bowen DJ, Bokhour BG. ‘It’s easier said than done’: perspectives on mammography from women with intellectual disabilities. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):142–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu SY, Clark MA. Breast and cervical cancer screening practices among disabled women aged 40–75: does quality of the experience matter? J Womens Health. 2008;17(8):1321–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Watson-Johnson LC, DeGroff A, Steele CB, Revels M, Smith JL, Justen E, Barron-Simpson R, Sanders L, Richardson LC. Mammography adherence: a qualitative study. J Womens Health. 2011;20(12):1887–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaltsa A, Holloway A, Cox K. Factors that influence mammography screening behaviour: a qualitative study of Greek women’s experiences. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(3):292–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Browne JL, Chan AYC. Using the theory of planned behaviour and implementation intentions to predict and facilitate upward family communication about mammography. Psychol Health. 2012;27(6):655–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J. The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psychooncology. 2005;14(11):917–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Marcus EN, Drummond D, Dietz N. Urban women’s preferences for learning of their mammogram result: a qualitative study. J Cancer Educ. 2012;27(1):156–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pineault P. Breast cancer screening: women’s experiences of waiting for further testing. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2007;34(4):847–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cancer Research UK. Cancer Statistics. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/breast/. Accessed 02 Oct 2013.

  30. Sauven P. Guidelines for the management of women at increased familial risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(5):653–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Andersen MR, Smith R, Meischke H, Bowen D, Urban N. Breast cancer worry and mammography use by women with and without a family history in a population-based sample. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12:314–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hodgson L, Dixon A, Turley L. Vote of confidence. Imaging and Therapy Practice. 5–10 July 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  33. O’Connell RL, Hartridge-Lambert SK, Din N, St John ER, Hitchins C, Johnson T. Patients’ understanding of medical terminology used in the breast clinic. Breast. 2013;22(5):836–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Brandon CJ, Mullan PB. Patients’ perception of care during image-guided breast biopsy in a rural community breast center: communication matters. J Cancer Educ. 2011;26(1):156–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sasson JP, Zand T, Lown BA. Communication in the diagnostic mammography suite: Implications for practice and training. Acad Radiol. 2008;15(4):417–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rimer BK, Bluman LG. The psychosocial consequences of mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:131–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brodersen J, Siersma VD. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(2):106–15.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Costanza ME, Luckmann R, White MJ, Rosal MC, Cranos C, Reed G, Clark R, Sama S, Yood R. Design and methods for a randomized clinical trial comparing three outreach efforts to improve screening mammography adherence. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(145):1472–6963. Abstract only.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Frederick Road, Salford, M6 6PU, UK

    Julie M. Nightingale & Fred J. Murphy

  2. Breast Screening Service, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Casterton Avenue, Burnley, BB10 2PQ, UK

    Rita M. Borgen

Authors
  1. Julie M. Nightingale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fred J. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rita M. Borgen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie M. Nightingale .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom

    Peter Hogg

  2. Breast Care Unit, Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chester, United Kingdom

    Judith Kelly

  3. The Nightingale Centre and Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Wythenshawe Hospital,, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Claire Mercer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nightingale, J.M., Murphy, F.J., Borgen, R.M. (2015). Client-Practitioner Interactions within Breast Care Services. In: Hogg, P., Kelly, J., Mercer, C. (eds) Digital Mammography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04831-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04831-4_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04830-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04831-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation