Cited by 36BRCA gene mutations in cancerCancer survivorship and careFamily Support in Illness

Psychological morbidity in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer: A controlled study

Open access
Butow, Phyllis, Meiser, Bettina, Price, Melanie, Bennett, Barbara, Tucker, Kathy, Davenport, Tracey, Hickie, Ian, The kathleen cuningham consortium for research into familial breast cancer psychosocial group·2005·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

There has been an ongoing debate in the literature on the extent to which women with a family history of breast cancer are at risk of psychological morbidity. This study compares psychological morbidity in 557 women participating in a large Australian registry of high-risk breast cancer families (kConFab) with 2 age and education matched samples, 1494 general practitioner attendees and 158 members of a twin registry. Participants completed the Somatic and Psychological Health Report (SPHERE). There were no significant differences between the three groups on psychological distress (F(2, 670) = 1.77, p = 0.17). Unsurprisingly, GP attendees reported more symptoms of somatic distress than the kConFab group (t411 = 2.89, p = 0.004); there were no differences between the twins and the kConFab group on somatic distress (t174 = 0.40, p = 0.687). Clinically significant anxiety/depression, a combination of psychological and somatic distress, therefore was significantly higher in GP attendees (28%) than the kConFab and twin samples (both 20%). These results refute the hypothesis that women with a family history of breast cancer are at greater psychological risk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.835

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Butow, P., Meiser, B., Price, M., Bennett, B., Tucker, K., Davenport, T., Hickie, I., & The kathleen cuningham consortium for research into familial breast cancer psychosocial group
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Prince of Wales Hospital (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Butow, Phyllis
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
196-203
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2066729834
Cited by
36
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
breast cancer, family history of breast cancer, psychological morbidity, psychological distress, anxiety, depression, somatic distress, high-risk families, twin registry, women
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Australia, Breast Neoplasms, Demography, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Morbidity, Population Surveillance, Prospective Studies, Psychophysiologic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Registries, Risk Factors, Twin Studies as Topic, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review