Background: Few studies have evaluated interventions to decrease a woman's anxiety after she receives an abnormal mammogram (i.e., one with a recommendation for follow-up). We performed a controlled trial to compare the effects of both an immediate reading of mammograms (i.e., a radiology intervention) and of an educational intervention that taught skills to cope with anxiety on the psychological status of women whose mammograms were normal or abnormal. Methods: Eligible women (n = 8543) aged 39 years or older were recruited from seven mammography sites at the time of their scheduled mammography screening and assigned to receive no intervention, either the radiology or the educational intervention, or both interventions. We used the Impact of Events Scale (IES) and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist subscales for Anxiety (HSC-A) and Depression (HSC-D) in structured telephone interviews of 2844 women to assess the psychological status of all women with abnormal mammograms (excluding women diagnosed with breast cancer) and of a random sample of women with normal mammograms at 3 weeks and 3 months after their mammograms. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We obtained usable 3-week interviews for 2390 (84%) women. By the 3-week interview, 1037 (72.1%) of the 1439 interviewed women with abnormal mammograms had completed the recommended work-up and knew that their abnormal mammograms were false positives. Women with abnormal mammograms had higher IES and HSC-A scores (i.e., more anxiety) than women with normal mammograms (mean IES scores: 4.97 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 4.47 to 5.50] and 1.82 [95% CI = 1.51 to 2.14], respectively; P < .001; mean HSC-A scores: 1.14 [95% CI = 1.12 to 1.15] and 1.11 [95% CI = 1.09 to 1.13], respectively, P = .002). Among women with false-positive mammograms, those who had received the radiology intervention reported less anxiety than those who had not (mean IES scores: 4.42 [95% CI = 3.73 to 5.07] and 5.53 [95% CI = 4.82 to 6.28], respectively, P = .026). The educational intervention was not associated with any difference in psychological outcomes. Three months after the mammogram, by which time more than 80% of the women with abnormal results knew their mammograms to be false positives, anxiety levels of women with false-positive mammograms remained higher than those of women with normal mammograms (mean IES scores: 2.34 [95% CI = 1.99 to 2.69] and 1.15 [95% CI = 0.87 to 1.47], respectively, P < .001). Conclusion: Immediate reading of screening mammograms, but not an educational intervention targeting coping skills, was associated with less anxiety among women with false-positive mammograms 3 weeks after mammography.
