Literature DB >> 11131051

Communicating results of diagnostic mammography: what do patients think?

K S Levin1, M P Braeuning, M S O'Malley, E D Pisano, E D Barrett, J A Earp.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate women's preferences for who (radiologist or referring physician) should communicate the results of diagnostic mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 153 women presenting to two sites for diagnostic mammography between February and June 1995 were collected with a 24-item, self-administered, closed-ended survey. For both normal and abnormal hypothetical results, contingency tables with chi2 tests and multiple logistic regression were used to determine the association, if any, between women's characteristics and their preferences.
RESULTS: Women undergoing diagnostic mammography preferred that their radiologists disclose their normal (90%) and abnormal (88%) mammogram results to them immediately after their examination, rather than have their referring physicians disclose results at a later time. In the case of normal findings, women whose regular physicians were specialists were less likely to want to hear first from their radiologists (odds ratio [OR] = 0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01, 0.77; P = .03), but women who were nervous about learning their results were more likely to want to hear first from their radiologists (OR = 4.5; 95% CI = 1.2, 17.3; P = .03).
CONCLUSION: Radiologists may want to consider assessing women's preferences for who communicates their mammogram results, as most women in this study preferred to hear these results from their radiologists rather than waiting to hear from their referring physicians.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11131051     DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(00)80058-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  9 in total

1.  Urban women's preferences for learning of their mammogram result: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Darlene Drummond; Noella Dietz
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Patients' perception of care during image-guided breast biopsy in a rural community breast center: communication matters.

Authors:  Catherine J Brandon; Patricia B Mullan
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Preferences of referring physicians regarding the role of radiologists as direct communicators of test results.

Authors:  Nuri Erdoğan; Hakan İmamoğlu; Süreyya Burcu Görkem; Serap Doğan; Serkan Şenol; Ahmet Öztürk
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2017 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.630

4.  How do breast imaging centers communicate results to women with limited English proficiency and other barriers to care?

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Feng Miao; Monica Yepes; Lee Sanders
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2014-06

5.  An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Mark Kettler; Andrea J Cook; Berta M Geller; Leah Karliner; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin Aiello Bowles; Diana S Buist; Thomas H Gallagher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results.

Authors:  Leah S Karliner; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Teresa Juarbe; Rena Pasick; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Reporting test results directly to patients: is there anything to lose?

Authors:  Claire Kendall; Alan J Forster
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2011-04-12

8.  Doctor-patient relationship in oncologic radiology.

Authors:  L Ollivier; J Leclère; S Dolbeault; S Neuenschwander
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 3.909

9.  Patient experiences and preferences: development of practice guidelines in a cancer imaging department.

Authors:  L Ollivier; F Apiou; J Leclère; M Sévellec; B Asselain; A Brédart; S Neuenschwander
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2009-10-02       Impact factor: 3.909

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.