journal article
Download Only Collection
Home
Rutter, D. R.; Calnan, M.; Vaile, M. S.; Field, S.; Wade, K. A.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6851.443pmid: 1392955
OBJECTIVE--To identify the nature of pain and discomfort experienced during mammography and how it can be ameliorated. DESIGN--Questionnaire survey before invitation for mammography and immediately after mammography. Responses before screening were related to experience of discomfort. SETTING--Health district in South East Thames region. SUBJECTS--1160 women aged 50-64 invited routinely for screening; 774 completed first questionnaire, of whom 617 had mammography. 597 completed the second questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Reported discomfort and pain, comparisons of discomfort with that experienced during other medical procedures, qualitative description of pain with adjective checklist. RESULTS--35% (206/597) of the women reported discomfort and 6% (37/595) pain. 10 minutes after mammography these figures were 4% (24/595) and 0.7% (4/595) respectively. More than two thirds of women ranked having a tooth drilled, having a smear test, and giving blood as more uncomfortable than mammography. The most important predictor of discomfort was previous expectation of pain (discomfort was reported by 21/32 (66%) women who expected pain and 186/531 (35%) who did not). Discomfort had little effect on satisfaction or intention to reattend. CONCLUSIONS--The low levels of reported pain and discomfort shortly after mammography and the favourable comparisons with other investigations suggest that current procedures are acceptable. Since two thirds of the women experienced less pain than expected health education and promotion must ensure that accurate information is made available and publicized.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6851.445pmid: 1392956
OBJECTIVE--To measure the delays between onset of symptoms and admission to hospital and provision of thrombolysis in patients with possible acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Observational study of patients admitted with suspected myocardial infarction during six months. SETTING--Six district general hospitals in Britain. SUBJECTS--1934 patients admitted with suspected myocardial infarction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Route of admission to hospital and time to admission and thrombolysis. RESULTS--Patients who made emergency calls did so sooner after onset of symptoms than those who called their doctor (median time 40 (95% confidence interval 30 to 52) minutes v 70 (60 to 90) minutes). General practitioners took a median of 20 (20 to 25) minutes to visit patients, rising to 30 (20 to 30) minutes during 0800-1200. The median time from call to arrival in hospital was 41 (38 to 47) minutes for patients who called an ambulance from home and 90 (90 to 94) minutes for those who contacted their doctor. The median time from arrival at hospital to thrombolysis was 80 (75 to 85) minutes for patients who were treated in the cardiac care unit and 31 (25 to 35) minutes for those treated in the accident and emergency department. CONCLUSION--The time from onset of symptoms to thrombolysis could be reduced substantially by more effective use of emergency services and faster provision of thrombolysis in accident and emergency departments.
van Oortmarssen, G. J.; Habbema, J. D.; van Ballegooijen, M.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6851.449pmid: 1392957
OBJECTIVE--To assess the relative protection against death from cervical cancer after two or more negative smear test results and compare it with the protection against invasive cancer estimated by an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group in an analysis of data from 10 large screening programmes. DESIGN--Comparison of risk of death from cervical cancer after two or more negative smear results with the risk in unscreened women by using a model constructed with data from the British Columbia screening programme. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Mortality from and incidence of invasive cancer. RESULTS--In women with two negative smear results estimates of protection against cervical cancer were about 50% higher when lethal invasive cancer was used as the criterion rather than all invasive cancer. This difference was due to these women being more likely to attend for further tests at which invasive cancer could be detected: screen detected cancer has a better prognosis than clinically diagnosed cancer. Screening intervals could be longer than three years: screening women aged 35-64 every five years was predicted to result in a 90% reduction in mortality from cervical cancer. CONCLUSION--Because protection from mortality is higher than protection from disease and because of the high costs and negative side effects of frequent screening, screening intervals should be longer than three years.
Showing 1 to 10 of 56 Articles