ReviewPatient preference and adherence2026
Patient Preference and Adherence in Mammography Screening: A Narrative Review.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine how mammography-related pain, anxiety, compression experience, perceived control, and patient-centered interventions influence patient preference and screening adherence. Methods: A structured literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for peer-reviewed English- and Chinese-language studies published between January 2000 and October 2025. Eligible studies examined mammography-related pain, anxiety, compression experience, perceived control, patient-assisted compression, psychosocial interventions, patient preference, patient experience, or screening adherence. Key Findings: Mammography-related pain is multifactorial and is influenced by compression force and pressure, breast morphology, positioning, prior negative experiences, and anxiety-mediated pain sensitization. Pressure-standardized compression may reduce severe pain, particularly among women with smaller breast volumes, while patient-assisted compression may increase patients' perceived ability to influence the compression process and improve tolerance without compromising diagnostic image quality. Psychosocial interventions, including structured education, patient-centered communication, and music-based interventions, may reduce anxiety and improve satisfaction by interrupting the anxiety-pain feedback loop. Qualitative evidence further suggests that patient-centered communication tailored to diverse ethnic backgrounds may help reduce anxiety and pain during mammography. Conclusion: Technical and psychosocial dimensions of the mammography experience may influence patient preference and screening tolerance; however, evidence directly linking these factors to future screening re-attendance remains limited. A multimodal, patient-centered strategy combining optimized compression, patient participation in the compression process, clear communication, and low-resource psychosocial support may improve screening tolerance, but whether these improvements translate into actual repeat screening participation requires further investigation. Implications for Practice: Screening programs should consider integrating pain assessment, patient education, patient-centered communication tailored to diverse ethnic backgrounds, and patient-assisted or pressure-guided compression where feasible to enhance patient-centered mammography care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.