IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Mammography screening and trust: The case of interval breast cancer

Listed author(s):
  • Solbjør, Marit
  • Skolbekken, John-Arne
  • Sætnan, Ann Rudinow
  • Hagen, Anne Irene
  • Forsmo, Siri
Registered author(s):

    Interval cancer is cancer detected between screening rounds among screening participants. In the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme, 19 per 10,000 screened women are diagnosed with interval cancer. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 such women. The women interpreted their interval breast cancer in two ways: that mammography can never be completely certain, or as an experience characterized by shock and doubts about the technology and the conduct of the medical experts. Being diagnosed with interval cancer thus influenced their trust in mammography, but not necessarily to the point of creating distrust. The women saw themselves as exceptions in an otherwise beneficial screening programme. Convinced that statistics had shown benefits from mammography screening and knowing others whose malignant tumours had been detected in the programme, the women bracketed their own experiences and continued trusting mammography screening. Facing a potentially lethal disease and a lack of alternatives to mammography screening left the women with few options but to trust the programme in order to maintain hope. In other words, trust may not only be a basis for hope, but also a consequence of it.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 75 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 10 ()
    Pages: 1746-1752

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:10:p:1746-1752
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.07.029
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Adelswärd, Viveka & Sachs, Lisbeth, 1996. "The meaning of 6.8: Numeracy and normality in health information talks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1179-1187, October.
    2. Pfeffer, Naomi, 2004. "Screening for breast cancer: candidacy and compliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 151-160, January.
    3. Gilson, Lucy, 2003. "Trust and the development of health care as a social institution," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1453-1468, April.
    4. Barker, Kristin K. & Galardi, Tasha R., 2011. "Dead by 50: Lay expertise and breast cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1351-1358, April.
    5. Mechanic, David & Meyer, Sharon, 2000. "Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 657-668, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:10:p:1746-1752. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.