Literature DB >> 11318910

Measuring satisfaction with mammography results reporting.

N C Dolan1, J Feinglass, A Priyanath, C Haviley, A V Sorensen, L A Venta.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess factors associated with patient satisfaction with communication of mammography results and their understanding and ability to recall these results.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey.
SETTING: Academic breast imaging center. PATIENTS: Two hundred ninety-eight patients who had either a screening or diagnostic mammogram.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Survey items assessed waiting time for results, anxiety about results, satisfaction with several components of results reporting, and patients' understanding of results and recommendations. Women undergoing screening exams were more likely to be dissatisfied with the way the results were communicated than those who underwent diagnostic exams and received immediate results (20% vs 11%, P =.05). For these screening patients, waiting for more than two weeks for notification of results, difficulty getting in touch with someone to answer questions, low ratings of how clearly results were explained, and considerable or extreme anxiety about the results were all independently associated with dissatisfaction with the way the results were reported, while age and actual exam result were not.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing screening mammograms were more likely to be dissatisfied with the way the results were communicated than were those who underwent diagnostic mammograms. Interventions to reduce the wait time for results, reduce patients' anxiety, and improve the clarity with which the results and recommendations are given may help improve overall satisfaction with mammography result reporting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11318910      PMCID: PMC1495184          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.00509.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  6 in total

1.  Quality mammography standards--FDA. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  1997-10-28

2.  Factors associated with repeat adherence to breast cancer screening.

Authors:  C Lerman; B Rimer; B Trock; A Balshem; P F Engstrom
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  The experience and satisfaction of women attending breast cancer screening.

Authors:  D A Bakker; N E Lightfoot; S Steggles; C Jackson
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  1998 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  A new instrument to measure patient satisfaction with mammography. Validity, reliability, and discriminatory power.

Authors:  K Loeken; S Steine; L Sandvik; E Laerum
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Satisfaction of attenders during the establishment of an Australian mammography screening program.

Authors:  J Cockburn; D Hill; T De Luise; D Flint-Richter
Journal:  Aust J Public Health       Date:  1993-06

6.  Development and validation of an instrument to measure satisfaction of participants at breast screening programmes.

Authors:  J Cockburn; D Hill; L Irwig; T De Luise; D Turnbull; P Schofield
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 9.162

  6 in total
  7 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening: can we talk?

Authors:  R G Miller
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  System-related interventions to reduce diagnostic errors: a narrative review.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Mark L Graber; Stephanie M Kissam; Asta V Sorensen; Nancy F Lenfestey; Elizabeth M Tant; Kerm Henriksen; Kenneth A LaBresh
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 7.035

3.  Acceptability of an Interactive Computer-Animated Agent to Promote Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density: a Mixed Method Pilot Study.

Authors:  Christine Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Timothy Bickmore; Mark Kennedy; Margaret F Hopkins; Michael D C Fishman; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Erica T Warner
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 5.128

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.  Emergency physicians' views of direct notification of laboratory and radiology results to patients using the Internet: a multisite survey.

Authors:  Joanne Callen; Traber Davis Giardina; Hardeep Singh; Ling Li; Richard Paoloni; Andrew Georgiou; William B Runciman; Johanna I Westbrook
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  The role of effective communication to enhance participation in screening mammography: a New Zealand case.

Authors:  Margaret A Brunton
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Lifetime utilization of mammography among Maltese women: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Danika Marmarà; Vincent Marmarà; Gill Hubbard
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 3.295

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.