Next Article in Journal
Influence of Sensation Seeking and Life Satisfaction Expectancy on Stock Addiction Tendency: Moderating Effect of Distress Tolerance
Next Article in Special Issue
Psychoeducation for Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Emotional, Clinical and Functional Related-Outcomes
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Sexologists’ Perceptions of the Potentials, Downfalls, and Best Practices for Digitally Delivered Therapy: A Lesson from Lockdown Due to COVID-19 in Portugal
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/bs13050377
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experience of Pain and Unpleasantness during Mammography Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Roles of Emotional, Cognitive, and Personality Factors

by
Casandra I. Montoro
1,*,
María del Carmen Alcaraz
1,2 and
Carmen M. Galvez-Sánchez
1,*
1
Department of Psychology, University of Jaén, 23071 Jaén, Spain
2
Diagnostic Mammography Unit, Health Center of Martos, Distrito Jaén Sur, 23600 Jaén, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13(5), 377; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050377
Submission received: 6 February 2023 / Revised: 26 April 2023 / Accepted: 27 April 2023 / Published: 4 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Personality, Intervention and Psychological/Neurocognitive Treatment: A Research Approach Belongings Urgent Health and Social Concerns)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Breast cancer is the most frequent cause of malignant tumors among women worldwide. Its successful prevention depends on the degree of participation in screening programs, which can be influenced by psychological factors, including fear. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement. Twenty-six healthy women aged 50–69 years took part in this study, all of whom were summoned for routine mammography screening and were randomly selected. Prior mammography screening, breast pain intensity, unpleasantness (visual analog scale), and psychological (catastrophizing, state anxiety, and fear of pain) and personality (neuroticism, psychoticism, and extraversion) variables were evaluated. Pain, unpleasantness, and state anxiety were further evaluated pre- and post-mammography screening. Results: During the mammography screening, pain and unpleasantness levels were higher than those observed pre- and post-screening. Residual unpleasantness remained post-screening. State anxiety was positively associated with pain, and psychoticism with unpleasantness, as reported by participants during the mammography screening. Conclusions: Anxiety levels influence the pain experienced in association with the mammography procedure. Women subjected to mammography screenings might benefit from relaxation strategies aimed at reducing anxiety to pre-mammography levels and, by extension, pain and unpleasantness during mammography. The inclusion of these strategies in breast cancer prevention campaigns could improve the rates of mammography reattendance, and therefore, benefit cancer prevention efforts.

1. Introduction

Breast cancer is an important challenge for healthcare systems because it is both the most frequent cause of malignant tumors among women worldwide [1] and the most common cancer in developed and developing regions [2]. Moreover, breast cancer is the leading cause of mortality among women worldwide [3]. In 2020, >2 million new breast cancer cases were diagnosed (23% of all cancers), and around 685,000 women died as a consequence of this disease [3]. According to the World Health Organization [3], 1 in 12 women will experience breast cancer during their lifetime.
According to general epidemiological statistics, breast cancer incidence and mortality vary according to a country’s degree of development. In developed countries and regions (i.e., Australia/New Zealand, North America, and parts of Europe), the incidence of breast cancer tends to be higher compared to that in developing countries (i.e., Asian and African countries) [4,5]. Relative mortality, although less geographically variable, is also greater in less developed countries [4,5].
Regarding classification, the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC; [6]) classifies breast cancer into four stages according to its extensiveness: (a) Stage I: small tumors without metastatic involvement of the axilla, (b) Stage II: tumors > 2 cm or moderate metastatic involvement of the axilla, (c) Stage III: very large tumors, skin or pectoral muscle involvement, or massive axillary involvement, and (d) Stage IV: metastasis in distant organs (bone, lung, liver, etc.).
The prognosis differs markedly among stages; the approximate 5-year survival rates are 95% (stage I), 80% (stage II), 60% (stage III), and 25% (stage IV) [2,6]. Advanced-stage disease necessitates a more challenging, uncertain, and aggressive treatment, which is typically pharmacological [7]. The diagnosis of breast cancer in its early stages is crucial to reducing physical and psychological sequelae and increasing the likelihood of a cure [8,9,10].
Breast screening programs are intended to detect the disease in its preclinical phase, and thus, reduce morbidity and mortality rates [11,12,13]. Mammography, which is widely available in many countries (e.g., the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Italy, and Spain [13,14,15]), is the technique of choice for the early diagnosis of breast cancer [13]. Biennial screening in asymptomatic 50–69-year-old women is considered the most favorable approach [16]. Unfortunately, in countries with limited resources (e.g., India, Mexico, Brazil, Gambia, etc.) breast screening programs are lacking or are constrained by economic factors (e.g., private health care accessibility). Therefore, breast cancer is commonly diagnosed at late stages, which accounts for the greater mortality seen in developing countries [17,18].
Mammography studies include two projections: craniocaudal (CC) and medial lateral oblique (MLO). Both projections are made by pulling and separating the breast tissue from the chest wall [19]. Mammographers incorporate a blade to compress the breast, with the aim of immobilizing the tissues and reducing breast thickness. This system reduces the radiation dose and improves image quality [20]. However, 75% of women describe mammography screening as a painful experience, and as a factor influencing the perceived quality of the service and the success of early detection programs [21]. Some women even report feeling discomfort and/or pain in subsequent days [22]. In this sense, cumulative participation is the most important factor in determining the success of screening programs and, by extension, breast cancer prevention campaigns [23]. Pain experience is considered an important factor influencing subsequent attendance to mammograms [21,22,23,24]. According to a systematic review conducted by Whelehan et al. (2013) [23], women who have not previously experienced pain are more likely to re-attend than those who have.
Pain is a subjective experience influenced by biological, psychological, and socio-cultural factors [25]. Among the psychological features, catastrophizing has been proven to be linked to pain experience in healthy and clinical populations [26]. In the context of breast cancer, catastrophizing has mostly been investigated in relation to adherence [27], the experience of persistent breast and mammography pain in breast cancer survivors [28,29], and perceived risk and concerns about recurrence among breast cancer survivors’ relatives [30]. Although the literature on catastrophizing and mammography-related pain is relatively scarce, some authors, such as Asghari & Nicholas (2003) [31], demonstrated that greater use of catastrophizing and coping self-statements predicted more severe pain during mammography. However, the data were collected from women undergoing screening mammography in a private clinic, where unequal access to public and private healthcare services due to income disparities has been proposed as a predictor of compliance with mammographic screening [32].
State anxiety and fear of pain are additional psychological factors that are widely associated with subjective pain experience [33,34]. Anxiety has been considered the most common psychologically distressing consequence of mammography, whereas fear is considered to act as a subjective psychological barrier to undergoing mammography [35].
Similarly, personality traits (through several mediating mechanisms, i.e., coping strategies, lifestyle, reactivity, etc.) are also known to modulate psychosocial factors affecting pain experience [36]. Eysenck’s personality theory is one of the most empirically well-supported personality theories. It comprises three personality dimensions: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism [37]. Extraversion—a personality trait defined by dynamism, positive emotionality, interest in the outside world, and sociability—has been proposed as a protective factor against pain [38,39]. The protective role of extraversion against pain may be explained by its influence on selective attention toward pain [40].
Neuroticism—aA trait characterized by a stable tendency to experience negative emotions—is associated with a greater number of catastrophic thoughts about pain in chronic pain patients [41,42], as well as higher overall levels of pain both in sufferers of chronic pain and healthy individuals [38]. Psychoticism—or the propensity for tough-mindedness, impulsivity, aggressiveness, egocentrism, low empathy, anti-sociability, and creativity—has been associated with greater use of catastrophism as a pain coping strategy in healthy individuals [38,43]. Concerning cancer, studies have largely focused on the association between these personality traits and screening compliance [44].
Despite the relevance of mammography-related pain to the effectiveness of prevention campaigns and the influence of biopsychosocial factors on that pain, few studies have explored the aforementioned factors in relation to mammography-related pain in healthy women undergoing screening mammography. Likewise, studies conducted in public health settings are quite scarce. Given the above, the present study aimed to: (1) analyze changes in pain ratings associated with routine mammography screening in a public health center and, (2) explore the influence of psychological variables (personality, state anxiety, catastrophizing, and fear of pain) on pain and unpleasantness during mammography screening.
It is hypothesized that women will experience high levels of pain and unpleasantness during screening, and that psychological variables such as state anxiety, catastrophizing, and personality modulate these perceptions. Further insights into mammography-related pain and unpleasantness may be relevant both clinically and for prevention efforts. This research intends to improve our understanding of the mammography experience, with the purpose of reducing the associated discomfort and increasing adherence to biennial screening.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Thirty women were asked to participate in the study; only four declined to participate (because the study clashed with their work schedules). In total, 26 healthy women aged 50–69 years took part in this study. All of the participants were summoned for a routine mammography screening at the Centro de Salud Bulevar (Jaén, Andalusia), and were randomly selected from the Breast Cancer Detection (DCM) appointment lists for Jaén’s health district. The exclusion criteria for all participants were metabolic abnormalities, neurological disorders (e.g., traumatic head injury), and other severe somatic (e.g., cancer, including breast cancer) or psychiatric (e.g., drug dependency or psychosis) diseases. No women had clinical signs of breast pathology or breast implants. The participants’ sociodemographic data are shown in Table 1. According to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement [45] (see Section 2.2), previous variables used to characterize the sample (i.e., the number of cohabitants and children, which has important implications for mammography attendance [46]) and potential confounding factors (i.e., menopause and breast size) are also displayed in Table 1. All participants voluntarily consented to participate in the study.

2.2. Procedure

This cross-sectional study was conducted based on the STROBE Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies [45]. Specifically, the STROBE checklist: cross-sectional studies guidelines was used to enhance the quality and transparency of the research (see Supplementary Materials for further details; Table S1). To reduce possible bias, after randomizing the sample, participants were assigned a code to ensure blinding of both the radio diagnostic technician (M.C.A.), who collected the data, and the authors, who conducted the statistical analyses. In the first phase—prior to the mammography screening—breast pain intensity and unpleasantness were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS), along with psychological (catastrophizing, state anxiety, and fear of pain) and personality (neuroticism, psychoticism, and extraversion) variables, via self-report questionnaires. In the second phase, i.e., during the screening, the intensity and unpleasantness of the pain in each mammographic projection (CC and MLO) was measured using the VAS scale. Immediately after the study of the breasts was completed, the level of state anxiety and possible residual breast pain (intensity and unpleasantness) were reevaluated.
The protocol was approved by the provincial research ethics committee of Jaén (Junta de Andalucía; Consejería de Salud y Provincias (TFG-DMS-2021/1228-N-21)).

2.3. Psychological Measures

In addition to an interview used to obtain demographic data, the participants were evaluated using the below self-report questionnaires:
Spanish Adaptation of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised—Abbreviated (EQR-A; Sandín et al., 2002) [47]. This truncated questionnaire consists of 24 items (6 items per scale) and explores the three personality dimensions: extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), and psychoticism (P); it also includes a sincerity scale (L). Scores range between 0 and 6 on all subscales (answer format = Yes/No). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83 for extraversion, 0.77 for neuroticism, 0.62 for psychoticism, and 0.81 for sincerity in women [48].
Spanish Adaptation of the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al., 1982) [49]. This instrument consists of 40 items measuring state (E) and trait (R) anxiety. Scores range between 0 and 60 for both state and trait anxiety. In the present study, we only evaluated state anxiety, for which Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.90 and 0.93 [49].
Fear of Pain Questionnaire III (FP-III; McNeil & Rainwater, 1998) [50]. This instrument consists of 30 items and three subscales (severe pain, mild pain, and medical pain) assessing fear (alarm reaction) of pain in different situations on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extreme). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.70 [51].
Spanish adaptation of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ; Rodriguez et al., 2004) [52]. This 39-item questionnaire evaluates the frequency of use of both adaptive and maladaptive pain coping strategies. In this study, only the six-item “catastrophizing” pain subscale was used (score range: 0–36). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 for catastrophizing [52].

2.4. Data Analysis

In the first step, the independent effects of mammography screening on pain and unpleasantness were analyzed using 3 (time: pre-, during, and post-mammography screening) × 2 (side: left and right) repeated-measures ANOVAs. The mean value of the projections (i.e., CC and MLO) was computed for breast pain and unpleasantness during mammography screening for the above analyses. In the second step, t-tests were used to compare state anxiety before and after mammography screening. In the third step, the independent effects of mammography screening projections on pain and unpleasantness were analyzed using 3 (projections: CC and MLO) × 2 (side: left and right) repeated-measures ANOVAs. Finally, Pearson bivariate correlations of personality (neuroticism, extraversion, and psychoticism), psychological variables (catastrophizing and fear of pain), and pain and unpleasantness during mammography screening (using the mean value of the projections) were performed. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05 (two-tailed). The Huynh–Feldt epsilon correction was applied for adjustment of the degrees of freedom, and post hoc Bonferroni correction was used if necessary. There were no missing data.

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Mammography Screening on Breast Pain, Unpleasantness, and State Anxiety

Regarding breast pain, significant main effects of time and side were observed (Table 2). Post hoc comparisons revealed that pain during mammography was more severe compared with that both pre- and post-screening. Marginal differences were observed between pre- and post-screening pain (Table 3). Pain in the left breast was more severe than in the right (1.58 ± 0.166 vs. 1.38 ± 0.156; p = 0.016).
For unpleasantness, the only significant main effect was that of time (Table 2). Post hoc comparisons revealed that unpleasantness during mammography was higher compared with that both pre- and post-screening. After mammography, unpleasantness remained higher than that experienced pre-screening (see Table 3).
State anxiety was higher pre- (17.07 ± 10.44) than post- (13.23 ± 8.86) mammography screening (t = 2.64; p = 0.014).

3.2. Effect of Mammography Screening Projections on Breast Pain and Unpleasantness

Upon comparing mammography screening projections (i.e., CC and MLO), no significant main effect of projection or side was seen, and there was no significant projection × side interaction effect for either pain or unpleasantness (see Table 4).

3.3. Associations of Psychological Variables, Pain, and Perceived Unpleasantness during Mammography Screening

Among the psychological variables explored in this study, only state anxiety and psychoticism were correlated with pain and unpleasantness during mammography screening. State anxiety was positively associated with pain, whereas psychoticism was positively associated with both pain and unpleasantness. No significant associations were observed for fear of pain or catastrophizing (see Table 5).

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to analyze changes in pain and unpleasantness ratings associated with the mammography procedure, and to explore the influence of psychological variables—personality, state anxiety, catastrophizing, and fear of pain—on pain and perceived unpleasantness during routine mammography screening in a public health center.
Congruent with previous findings [21,22,23,24,53], pain and unpleasantness ratings during mammography were higher compared with those both pre- and post-screening. Although pain post-mammography returned to its initial level, unpleasantness post-mammography remained higher, confirming a residual feeling of discomfort or displeasure even after screening is accomplished [22].
Regardless of the time point (pre, during, or post-screening), pain in the left breast was greater than in the right. Additionally, pain did not differ between the left and right sides when projections (CC and MLO) were analyzed. In light of these results, differences in pain between breasts were explained neither by the mammography procedure nor the type of projection. A plausible hypothesis is greater intrinsic sensitivity of the left breast compared to the right. However, no previous studies of healthy women are available to support this assumption. Studies have mostly explored breast sensitivity in distinct cutaneous areas [54], or after interventions such as mastectomy, implant-based breast reconstruction [55,56], and reduction mammaplasty [57,58,59]. Uncontrolled factors in our study could also account for the greater left breast pain, such as breast size [60,61], or more specifically, left breast size.
With respect to psychological factors, state anxiety was higher pre- than post-mammography screening. The prompt decline in anxiety after screening indicates that the women felt more relaxed. This is congruent with state anxiety as a future-oriented emotional state characterized by anticipatory affective, behavioral, and cognitive reactions to potential threat and uncertainty [62]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and as reported above, state anxiety prior to screening was positively associated with mean pain ratings during mammography screening. Therefore, congruent with previous studies on pain perception [33,34], anxiety was likely to have an effect on posterior pain perception during the screening. Opposite to Loving et al. (2021) [35], anxiety was not considered a psychologically distressing consequence of mammography, but rather, a psychological factor prior to mammography that influenced the pain experience. Congruently, Fazeli et al. (2021) [53] observed that a considerable percentage of women experienced fear and anxiety before (58%) and during (49%) a magnetic resonance imaging breast examination.
In this study, psychoticism was related to mean unpleasantness during mammography screening. Among the personality traits evaluated, psychoticism was the one for which we had the fewest expectations. Indeed, in one of our previous studies [38], neuroticism was the only personality trait positively associated with pain and state anxiety in healthy individuals; psychoticism did not show any relation to pain. The lack of congruency in the findings of the present study and our previous study may relate to the type of pain and method used for its evaluation (mammography-related breast pain according to VAS scores vs. non-localized pain assessed via questionnaire). Nonetheless, unpleasantness is distinct from sensory pain. It is an emotional experience (i.e., a disturbing emotion) resulting from pain and mediated by memories and contextual features. In a study conducted by Rawlings (2003) [63], a preference for unpleasant paintings in students with high psychoticism scores was observed. Although no firm conclusions can be drawn from these results, it can be hypothesized that individuals scoring higher in psychoticism might tend to seek and experience unpleasantness. In the present study, no correlation was observed between psychoticism and pain catastrophizing (r = −0.193, p = 0.345), which, together with the lack of associations of catastrophizing with the variables that we evaluated, would rule out any role of catastrophizing in explaining our results, in contrast to the study of Asghari and Nicholas (2003) [31].
Other factors (e.g., self-efficacy, susceptibility, motivation, and perceived barriers) have been associated with greater or lower rates of screening attendance [64], and could be related to mammography pain experience. Certain factors have been shown to be associated with the capacity to tolerate discomfort during mammography, such as breast mass, abnormal test results, and the consumption of substances containing methylxanthine [65]. Given that avoidance of discomfort has been associated with increased pain perception [65], future studies addressing these factors in relation to pain experience are highly encouraged.
The present results show the complexity of the pain experience and psychological factors related to mammography screenings. Given the (1) effect of anxiety on pain perception, (2) well-reported association between pain perception and cumulative participation in mammography screening, and (3) relevance of this cumulative participation to the prevention of breast cancer, effective pain-reducing interventions for mammography are needed to reduce the associated anxiety. Women subjected to mammography screenings may benefit from relaxation strategies (e.g., breathing and visual thinking exercises) aimed at reducing anxiety to pre-mammography levels. Psychoeducation programs aimed not only at patients and women at risk, but also at healthy women, could also be useful for improving adherence to mammography screening [66,67]. A major challenge to social health systems is making women more aware of the benefits of early examinations, with the goal of encouraging them to include mammography in their health routines [68]. When women feel more confident and less stressed, the reattendance rate is likely to increase.
In relation to the above, the rate of breast cancer survival for at least 5 years after diagnosis varies from over 90% in high-income countries to 66% and 40% in India and South Africa, respectively [3]. In high-income countries, early detection and treatment have achieved good results. Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the Worldwide Initiative against Breast Cancer, whose main objective is to reduce global breast cancer-related mortality by 2.5% per year. If this goal is met, 2.5 million fewer deaths worldwide are expected from 2020 to 2040. The three pillars needed to accomplish this objective are: (1) health promotion for early detection, (2) timely diagnosis, and (3) comprehensive management of breast cancer [3]. The present findings are in line with this initiative; they highlight the importance of designing and promoting interventions aimed at reducing the pain and unpleasantness associated with mammography to accomplish the WHO’s objective.
The main limitations of the present study were Its cross-sectional design, which did not allow for the establishment of causal associations, as well as the small sample size and failure to correct for Type I errors. Furthermore, the effects of breast size and/or menstrual cycle on breast pain and unpleasantness were not accounted for. Breast size and breast asymmetry have been suggested as risk factors for breast cancer [69], and it has also been stated that the first factor has a significant impact on breast pain experience [61,62]. Additionally, cyclical mastalgia (i.e., cyclical breast pain) has been associated with the menstrual period [70]. Although no data on the menstrual cycle were collected in the present study, breast size was measured. However, the small sample size did not allow for subgroup comparisons. Lastly, the anti-sociability—and consequently, the likelihood of fewer social contacts—that characterizes the psychoticism personality trait might negatively influence the mammography experience and reduce the benefits of mammography screening programs. In this regard, social support (as indicated by cohabitation, for example) has been associated with a greater probability of attending and reattending mammography exams [46,71,72,73]. To draw firm conclusions, further studies assessing the effects of these variables on breast pain during mammography screening, and addressing the other limitations mentioned above, are needed.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the levels of pain and perceived unpleasantness during mammography were higher compared to those both pre- and post-screening. State anxiety was higher pre-mammography screening compared to post-screening. Residual unpleasantness was observed post-screening. During screening, state anxiety was positively associated with pain, and psychoticism with unpleasantness. These findings highlight the relevance of psychological factors to mammography exams, and confirm the need for programs aiming to enhance breast cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment to consider these factors. A better understanding of the experience of mammography screenings and associated psychological factors might facilitate the development of personalized biopsychosocial treatment plans to optimize the early detection and prevention of breast cancer [74,75].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/bs13050377/s1; Table S1: STROBE Statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cross-sectional studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.I.M., M.d.C.A. and C.M.G.-S.; methodology, C.I.M., M.d.C.A. and C.M.G.-S.; validation, C.I.M. and C.M.G.-S.; formal analysis, C.I.M. and C.M.G.-S.; investigation, C.I.M. and C.M.G.-S.; data curation, M.d.C.A.; writing—original draft preparation, C.I.M. and C.M.G.-S.; writing—review and editing, C.I.M. and C.M.G.-S.; visualization, C.I.M. and C.M.G.-S.; supervision, C.I.M. and C.M.G.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Consejería de Universidad, Investigación e Innovación en materia de I+D+i de la Junta de Andalucía (ProyExcel_00374).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The procedure performed in this paper followed the general criteria of the local ethics committee, based on the Helsinki Declaration principles, and was approved by the ethics committee of Jaén’s Provincial Research (Junta de Andalucía; Conserjería de Salud y Provincias (TFG-DMS-2021/1228-N-21)).

Informed Consent Statement

All the data were collected from adults who voluntarily participated in the research and gave their informed consent to be subjects in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The authors claim that this manuscript describes an original research work that has not been preregistered. The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding authors. The data are not publicly available due to compliance with privacy laws.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bazar, N.O.; Hernandez, C.; Bazar, L. Factores de Riesgo Asociados al Cáncer de Mama. Rev. Cuba. Med. Gen. Integral 2020, 36, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zaidi, Z.; Dib, H.A. The Worldwide Female Breast Cancer Incidence and Survival, 2018. Cancer Res. 2018, 79, 4191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cáncer de Mama. Available online: https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer (accessed on 6 February 2023).
  4. Arnold, M.; Morgan, E.; Rumgay, H.; Mafra, A.; Singh, D.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I. Current and future burden of breast cancer: Global statistics for 2020 and 2040. Breast 2022, 66, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ghoncheh, M.; Pournamdar, Z.; Salehiniya, H. Incidence and Mortality and Epidemiology of Breast Cancer in the World. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2016, 17, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Brierley, J.D.; Gospodararowicz, M.K.; Wittekind, C. Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM Classification of Ma-Lignant Tumours; Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  7. Waks, A.G.; Winer, E.P. Breast cancer treatment. JAMA 2019, 321, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hakama, M.; Coleman, M.P.; Alexe, D.-M.; Auvinen, A. Cancer Screening: Evidence and Practice in Europe 2008. Eur. J. Cancer 2008, 44, 1404–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Castro López, R. Diagnóstico Precoz Del Cáncer de Mama Con Mamografía ¿merece La Pena? Clinica 2017, 26, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Milosevic, M.; Jankovic, D.; Milenkovic, A.; Stojanov, D. Early Diagnosis and Detection of Breast Cancer. Technol. Health Care 2018, 26, 729–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ferlay, J.; Colombet, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Dyba, T.; Randi, G.; Bettio, M.; Gavin, A.; Visser, O.; Bray, F. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 Countries and 25 Major Cancers in 2018. Eur. J. Cancer 2018, 103, 356–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hashim, D.; Boffetta, P.; La Vecchia, C.; Rota, M.; Bertuccio, P.; Malvezzi, M.; Negri, E. The Global Decrease in Cancer Mortality: Trends and Disparities. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Løberg, M.; Lousdal, M.L.; Bretthauer, M.; Kalager, M. Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2015, 17, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Domingo, L.; Hofvind, S.; Hubbard, R.A.; Román, M.; Benkeser, D.; Sala, M.; Castells, X. Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in US, Norway, and Spain. Eur. Radiol. 2016, 26, 2520–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Katalinic, A.; Eisemann, N.; Kraywinkel, K.; Noftz, M.R.; Hübner, J. Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality before and after Implementation of the German Mammography Screening Program. Int. J. Cancer 2020, 147, 709–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Canelo-Aybar, C.; Posso, M.; Montero, N.; Solà, I.; Saz-Parkinson, Z.; Duffy, S.W.; Follmann, M.; Gräwingholt, A.; Giorgi Rossi, P.; Alonso-Coello, P. Benefits and Harms of Annual, Biennial, or Triennial Breast Cancer Mammography Screening for Women at Average Risk of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC). Br. J. Cancer 2022, 126, 673–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Agarwal, G.; Ramakant, P.; Forgach, E.R.S.; Rendón, J.C.; Chaparro, J.M.; Basurto, C.S.; Margaritoni, M. Breast Cancer Care in Developing Countries. World J. Surg. 2009, 33, 2069–2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Unger-Saldaña, K. Challenges to the Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer in Developing Countries. World J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 5, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eklund, G.W. The Art of Mammographic Positioning. In Radiological Diagnosis of Breast Diseases; Friedrich, M., Sickles, E.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Perry, N.; Broeders, M.; De Wolf, C.; Törnberg, S.; Holland, R.; Von Karsa, L. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis—Summary Document. Oncol. Clin. Pract. 2008, 4, 74–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pacifici, S. Dosis, compresión y «riesgo de dolor» en mamografía. Imagen Diagn. 2016, 7, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moshina, N.; Sebuødegård, S.; Holen, Å.S.; Waade, G.G.; Tsuruda, K.; Hofvind, S. The Impact of Compression Force and Pressure at Prevalent Screening on Subsequent Re-Attendance in a National Screening Program. Prev. Med. 2018, 108, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Whelehan, P.; Evans, A.; Wells, M.; Macgillivray, S. The Effect of Mammography Pain on Repeat Participation in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. Breast 2013, 22, 389–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Andrews, F.J. Pain during Mammography: Implications for Breast Screening Programmes. Australas. Radiol. 2001, 45, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Melzack, R.; Wall, P.D. Pain Mechanisms: A New Theory: A Gate Control System Modulates Sensory Input from the Skin before It Evokes Pain Perception and Response. Science 1965, 150, 971–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pulvers, K.; Hood, A. The Role of Positive Traits and Pain Catastrophizing in Pain Perception. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2013, 17, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shelby, R.A.; Scipio, C.D.; Somers, T.J.; Soo, M.S.; Weinfurt, K.P.; Keefe, F.J. Prospective Study of Factors Predicting Adherence to Surveillance Mammography in Women Treated for Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 813–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Bovbjerg, D.H.; Keefe, F.J.; Soo, M.S.; Manculich, J.; Van Denburg, A.; Zuley, M.L.; Ahrendt, G.M.; Skinner, C.S.; Edmond, S.N.; Shelby, R.A. Persistent Breast Pain in Post-Surgery Breast Cancer Survivors and Women with No History of Breast Surgery or Cancer: Associations with Pain Catastrophizing, Perceived Breast Cancer Risk, Breast Cancer Worry, and Emotional Distress. Acta Oncol. 2019, 58, 763–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Scipio, C.; Shelby, R.; Keefe, F.; Soo, M. The Mammography Pain Experiences of Breast Cancer Survivors: Testing a Biopsychosocial Model. J. Pain 2009, 10, S71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Whitney, C.A.; Dorfman, C.S.; Shelby, R.A.; Keefe, F.J.; Gandhi, V.; Somers, T.J. Reminders of Cancer Risk and Pain Catastrophizing: Relationships with Cancer Worry and Perceived Risk in Women with a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer. Fam. Cancer 2019, 18, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Asghari, A.; Nicholas, M.K. Pain during Mammography: The Role of Coping Strategies. Pain 2004, 108, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marchi, A.A.; Gurgel, M.S.C. Adesão Ao Rastreamento Mamográfico Oportunístico Em Serviços de Saúde Públicos e Privados. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2010, 32, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Markfelder, T.; Pauli, P. Fear of Pain and Pain Intensity: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 146, 411–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tang, J.; Gibson, S.J. A Psychophysical Evaluation of the Relationship between Trait Anxiety, Pain Perception, and Induced State Anxiety. J. Pain 2005, 6, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Loving, V.A.; Aminololama-Shakeri, S.; Leung, J.W.T. Anxiety and Its Association with Screening Mammography. J. Breast Imaging 2021, 3, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Asghari, M.; Nicholas, M. Personality and Adjustment to Chronic Pain. Pain Rev. 1999, 6, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eysenck, H.J.; Eysenck, M.W. Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  38. Montoro, C.I.; Reyes del Paso, G.A. Personality and Fibromyalgia: Relationships with Clinical, Emotional, and Functional Variables. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2015, 85, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ramírez, C.; Valdivia, I. Evaluación del funcionamiento diario de pacientes con dolor crónico. Psicol. Conductual. 2003, 11, 283–291. [Google Scholar]
  40. Eysenck, H.J. Lecture 2: The Biological Basis of Personality. In Human Assessment: Cognition and Motivation; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1986; pp. 101–104. ISBN 9789401084604. [Google Scholar]
  41. Galvez-Sánchez, C.M.; Montoro Aguilar, C.I. Migraine and Neuroticism: A Scoping Review. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Wong, W.S.; Lam, H.M.J.; Chen, P.P.; Chow, Y.F.; Wong, S.; Lim, H.S.; Jensen, M.P.; Fielding, R. The Fear-Avoidance Model of Chronic Pain: Assessing the Role of Neuroticism and Negative Affect in Pain Catastrophizing Using Structural Equation Modeling. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2015, 22, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. García-Torres, F.; Alós, F.J. Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised Psychoticism Predicts Motivational-Somatic Symptoms of Depression in Breast Cancer Survivors: Psychoticism Predicts Motivational-Somatic Symptoms. Psychooncology 2014, 23, 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hajek, A.; Kretzler, B.; König, H.-H. Personality and the Use of Cancer Screenings. A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0244655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. STROBE Initiative—The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lagerlund, M.; Åkesson, A.; Zackrisson, S. Population-based mammography screening attendance in Sweden 2017–2018: A cross-sectional register study to assess the impact of sociodemographic factors. Breast 2021, 59, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sandín, B.; Valiente, R.M.; Choro, P.; Montes, M.O.; Germán, M. Versión Española Del Cuestionario EPQR-Abreviado (EPQR-A)(I): Análisis Exploratorio de La Estructura Factorial. Rev. Psicopatología Psicol. Clínica 2002, 7, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ibáñez, M.I. Versión reducida del cuestionario revisado de personalidad de Eysenck (EPQ-RA). Análisis Modif. Conducta 1999, 25, 849–864. [Google Scholar]
  49. Spielberger, C.D.; Gorsuch, R.L.; Lushene, R.E. Manual del Cuestionario de Ansiedad Estado/Rasgo (STAI); TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  50. McNeil, D.W.; Rainwater, A.J. Development of the fear of pain questionnaire-III. J. Behav. Med. 1998, 21, 389–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Vambheim, S.M.; Lyby, P.S.; Aslaksen, P.M.; Flaten, M.A.; Åsli, O.; Martinussen, L.M. The Fear of Pain Questionnaire-III and the Fear of Pain Questionnaire-Short Form: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. J. Pain Res. 2017, 10, 1871–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Franco, R.; García, C. Blanco Picabia I. Evaluación de Las Estrategias de Afrontamiento Del Dolor Crónico. Actas Españolas Psiquiatr. 2004, 32, 82–91. [Google Scholar]
  53. Fazeli, S.; Snyder, B.S.; Gareen, I.F.; Lehman, C.D.; Khan, S.A.; Romanoff, J.; Gatsonis, C.A.; Miller, K.D.; Sparano, J.A.; Comstock, C.E.; et al. Patient-Reported Testing Burden of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging among Women with Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: An Ancillary Study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112): An Ancillary Study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112). JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e2129697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Terzis, J.K.; Vincent, M.P.; Wilkins, L.M.; Rutledge, K.; Deane, L.M. Breast sensibility: A neurophysiological appraisal in the normal breast. Ann. Plast. Surg 1987, 19, 318–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bijkerk, E.; Van Kuijk, S.M.J.; Beugels, J.; Cornelissen, A.J.M.; Heuts, E.M.; Van der Hulst, R.R.W.J.; Tuinder, S.M.H. Breast sensibility after mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2019, 175, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hwang, Y.J.; Lee, H.C.; Park, S.H.; Yoon, E.S. A comparative study of breast sensibility and patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction: Autologous, 2-stage implant-based, and prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2022, 88, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ferreira, M.C.; Costa, M.P.; Cunha, M.S.; Sakae, E.; Fels, K.W. Sensibility of the breast after reduction mammaplasty. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2003, 51, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Silhol, T.; Chaouat, M.; Noel, W.; Mimoun, M.; Boccara, D. Interindividual and intraindividual variations of breast sensitivity before and after breast reduction: A prospective study. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2021, 86, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. DelVecchyo, C.; Caloca, J., Jr.; Caloca Sr, J.; Gómez-Jauregui, J. Evaluation of breast sensibility using dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2004, 113, 1975–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kostidou, E.; Schmelz, M.; Hasemaki, N.; Kokotis, P. Objective methods for breast sensibility testing. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2019, 143, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Burbage, J.; Cameron, L. An Investigation into the Prevalence and Impact of Breast Pain, Bra Issues and Breast Size on Female Horse Riders. J. Sport. Sci. 2017, 35, 1091–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Grupe, D.W.; Nitschke, J.B. Uncertainty and Anticipation in Anxiety: An Integrated Neurobiological and Psychological Perspective. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2013, 14, 488–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rawlings, D. Personality Correlates of Liking for ‘Unpleasant’ Paintings and Photographs. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2003, 34, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Emami, L.; Ghahramanian, A.; Rahmani, A.; Mirza Aghazadeh, A.; Onyeka, T.C.; Nabighadim, A. Beliefs, Fear and Awareness of Women about Breast Cancer: Effects on Mammography Screening Practices. Nurs. Open 2021, 8, 890–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Akansel, N.; Gülşen, M.; Gültaş, M. Influence of Discomfort Tolerance of Women Who Undergo Mammography on the Perceived Pain Intensity Due to the Procedure. Eur. J. Breast Health 2021, 17, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ghanbari, E.; Yektatalab, S.; Mehrabi, M. Effects of Psychoeducational Interventions Using Mobile Apps and Mobile-Based Online Group Discussions on Anxiety and Self-Esteem in Women with Breast Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2021, 9, e19262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Setyowibowo, H.; Yudiana, W.; Hunfeld, J.A.M.; Iskandarsyah, A.; Passchier, J.; Arzomand, H.; Sadarjoen, S.S.; de Vries, R.; Sijbrandij, M. Psychoeducation for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Breast 2022, 62, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Narayan, A.K.; Lee, C.I.; Lehman, C.D. Screening for Breast Cancer. Med. Clin. N. Am. 2020, 104, 1007–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Scutt, D.; Manning, J.T.; Whitehouse, G.H.; Leinster, S.J.; Massey, C.P. The Relationship between Breast Asymmetry, Breast Size and the Occurrence of Breast Cancer. Br. J. Radiol. 1997, 70, 1017–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Goyal, A. Breast pain. BMJ Clin. Evid. 2014, 2014, 0812. [Google Scholar]
  71. Farhadifar, F.; Taymoori, P.; Bahrami, M.; Zarea, S. The Relationship of Social Support Concept and Repeat Mammography among Iranian Women. BMC Womens Health 2015, 15, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Farmer, D.; Reddick, B.; D’Agostino, R.; Jackson, S.A. Psychosocial Correlates of Mammography Screening in Older African American Women. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2007, 34, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jensen, L.F.; Pedersen, A.F.; Andersen, B.; Vedsted, P. Social Support and Non-Participation in Breast Cancer Screening: A Danish Cohort Study. J. Public Health 2016, 38, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Bruehl, S. Personalized Pain Medicine: Pipe Dream or Reality? Anesthesiology 2015, 122, 967–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Braš, M.; Dorđević, V.; Milunović, V.; Brajković, L.; Miličić, D.; Konopka, L. Person-Centered Medicine versus Personalized Medi-Cine: Is It Just a Sophism? A View from Chronic Pain Management. Psychiatr. Danub. 2011, 23, 246–250. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and confounding factors.
Table 1. Participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and confounding factors.
CategoriesM ± SD or n (%)
Age-58 ± 5.59
Years of education-11.53 ± 4.67
MenopauseYes4 (15.4)
No22 (84.6)
Breast size *Small15 (57.7)
Medium8 (30.8)
Large3 (11.5)
Number of cohabitants-2.81 ± 0.85
Number of children-2.00 ± 1.23
Note. Years of education = number of years of education according to the Spanish educational system. * Breast size was established according to the surface area of compression blades occupied by the breasts.
Table
Table 2. Repeated-measures ANOVAs for the effects of mammography screening on pain and unpleasantness.
Table 2. Repeated-measures ANOVAs for the effects of mammography screening on pain and unpleasantness.
EffectsF (df) *pŋp²
Breast painTime85.56 (1.02, 25.72)<0.00010.774
Side6.69 (1.00, 25.00)0.0160.211
Time × side1.55 (1.44, 36.00)2.2260.059
UnpleasantnessTime40.14 (1.03, 25.77)<0.00010.616
Side2.06 (1.00, 25.00)0.1640.076
Time × side1.20 (1.52, 38.16)0.3020.046
Note. * Degrees of freedom (df) were adjusted via Huynh–Feldt epsilon correction. Significant p Values are highlighted in bold.
Table
Table 3. p-values for post hoc comparisons of the main effect of time on pain and unpleasantness.
Table 3. p-values for post hoc comparisons of the main effect of time on pain and unpleasantness.
p Value
TimeM ± SDPreDuringPost
PainPre0.019 ± 0.019-<0.00010.096
During4.279 ± 0.454<0.0001-<0.0001
Post0.154 ± 0.0610.096<0.0001-
UnpleasantnessPre0.000 ± 0.000-<0.00010.028
During3.173 ± 0.494<0.0001-<0.0001
Post0.192 ± 0.0680.028<0.0001-
Note. Pre = pre-mammography screening; During = during mammography screening; Post = post-mammography screening. Significant p Values are highlighted in bold.
Table
Table 4. Repeated-measures ANOVAs for the effects of mammography screening projections (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique) on breast pain and unpleasantness.
Table 4. Repeated-measures ANOVAs for the effects of mammography screening projections (craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique) on breast pain and unpleasantness.
EffectsF (df) *pŋp²
Breast painProjection0.34 (1.00, 25.00)0.5630.014
Side3.16 (1.00, 25.00)0.0880.112
Projection × side3.73 (1.00, 25.00)0.0650.130
UnpleasantnessProjection0.52 (1.00, 25.00)0.4800.020
Side1.50 (1.00, 25.00)0.2320.057
Projection × side1.65 (1.00, 25.00)0.2100.062
Note. * Degrees of freedom (df) were adjusted via Huynh–Feldt epsilon correction.
Table
Table 5. Pearson bivariate correlations of psychological variables, pain, and unpleasantness during mammography screening.
Table 5. Pearson bivariate correlations of psychological variables, pain, and unpleasantness during mammography screening.
Psychological MeasuresPainUnpleasantness
EPQR-ANeuroticism0.058−0.120
Extraversion0.3320.310
Psychoticism0.2720.467 *
STAIState Anxiety0.389 *0.205
FP-IIIFear of severe pain0.2190.248
Fear of mild pain0.1070.134
Fear of medical pain0.2130.138
CSQCatastrophizing0.109−0.035
Note. * p < 0.05; EPQR-A = Spanish Adaptation of Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised—Abbreviated; STAI = Spanish Adaptation of State–Trait Anxiety Inventory; FP-II = Fear of Pain Questionnaire-III; CSQ = Spanish adaptation of Coping Strategies Questionnaire. Significant p Values are highlighted in bold.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Montoro, C.I.; Alcaraz, M.d.C.; Galvez-Sánchez, C.M. Experience of Pain and Unpleasantness during Mammography Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Roles of Emotional, Cognitive, and Personality Factors. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050377

AMA Style

Montoro CI, Alcaraz MdC, Galvez-Sánchez CM. Experience of Pain and Unpleasantness during Mammography Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Roles of Emotional, Cognitive, and Personality Factors. Behavioral Sciences. 2023; 13(5):377. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050377

Chicago/Turabian Style

Montoro, Casandra I., María del Carmen Alcaraz, and Carmen M. Galvez-Sánchez. 2023. "Experience of Pain and Unpleasantness during Mammography Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Roles of Emotional, Cognitive, and Personality Factors" Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 5: 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050377

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop