Literature DB >> 1463862

Patients' preferences for learning the results of mammographic examinations.

S E Lind1, D Kopans, M J Good.   

Abstract

The communication of diagnostic test results is an important aspect of the interaction between doctors and patients. Communication of mammogram results is of particular interest because the test is used to detect a common and potentially dangerous malignancy and because patients in the United States are able in some locations to obtain mammography at their own request, rather than being referred by a physician. We conducted a survey to learn about the preferences of a group of women at a traditional mammography center for learning the results of this commonly performed test. We asked women undergoing mammography to respond to questionnaires designed to learn: 1) How they felt about different methods of telling patients the results of mammograms; 2) How they were informed of the results of previous mammograms; 3) How they were told the results of the current mammograms. Patients indicated that if no abnormality is detected, they prefer to have their doctor call with the result, but if the study is 'abnormal' they wish to be told by their own physician in the office. Failing to notify the patient if the study is normal was the least preferred outcome. This group of patients did not express an interest in the most immediate form of notification (i.e. learning the result from the radiologist performing the test). Analysis of how patients felt about ways in which they were previously informed of the results of mammograms suggests that their reactions are influenced to a large extent by their clinical status. Patients undergoing mammography for diagnostic purposes, for example, were less pleased by a 'preferred' method (i.e. being told by their physician) than were those undergoing screening mammography. While patients have opinions about how they would prefer to be told their mammogram results, they are accepting a variety of methods of telling, if they are receiving good news. If abnormalities are found, patients prefer to be told in person by their own physician. Interpretations of surveys of patient satisfaction should be tempered by the finding that the clinical status of the patient alters their perceptions of satisfaction with this aspect of their physician's behavior. Patient preferences may change if increasing numbers of women are told their results by the radiologist.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1463862     DOI: 10.1007/bf01833519

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  8 in total

1.  Primary care and diagnostic testing outside the hospital.

Authors:  J D Stoeckle
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.188

2.  Rights, roles, and relationships in radiology.

Authors:  W W Logan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Mammography screening and the self-referred woman.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  The self-referred mammography patient: a new responsibility for radiologists.

Authors:  B Monsees; J M Destouet; R G Evens
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Rights, roles, and relationships in radiology.

Authors:  M H Schreiber; W J Winslade
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Pensive women, painful vigils: consequences of delay in assessment of mammographic abnormalities.

Authors:  I S Fentiman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1988-05-07       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Bearing the news.

Authors:  S S Radovsky
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1985-08-29       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Telling the diagnosis of cancer.

Authors:  S E Lind; M J DelVecchio Good; S Seidel; T Csordas; B J Good
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 44.544

  8 in total
  10 in total

1.  Preferences for notification of imaging results in patients with metastatic cancer.

Authors:  Mary K Morreale; Tanina F Moore; Seongho Kim; Heatherlun S Uphold; Lorna M Mabunda; Felicity W K Harper
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2019-08-22

2.  Direct reporting of laboratory test results to patients by mail to enhance patient safety.

Authors:  Sharon Sung; Valerie Forman-Hoffman; Mark C Wilson; Peter Cram
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Preventing communication errors in telephone medicine.

Authors:  Anna B Reisman; Karen E Brown
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Assessment of mammography experiences and satisfaction among American Indian/Alaska Native women.

Authors:  Florence M Ndikum-Moffor; Stacy Braiuca; Christine Makosky Daley; Byron J Gajewski; Kimberly K Engelman
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec

5.  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

6.  An assessment of American Indian women's mammography experiences.

Authors:  Kimberly K Engelman; Christine M Daley; Byron J Gajewski; Florence Ndikum-Moffor; Babalola Faseru; Stacy Braiuca; Stephanie Joseph; Edward F Ellerbeck; K Allen Greiner
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 2.809

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.  Patient preferences for notification of normal laboratory test results: a report from the ASIPS Collaborative.

Authors:  Donna M Baldwin; Javán Quintela; Christine Duclos; Elizabeth W Staton; Wilson D Pace
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2005-03-08       Impact factor: 2.497

9.  Communication of Pulmonary Function Test Results: A Survey of Patient's Preferences.

Authors:  Debbie Zagami; Jessica Hockenhull; Alanna Bodger; Krishna Bajee Sriram
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: A mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences.

Authors:  Sian Williamson; Jacoby Patterson; Rebecca Crosby; Rebecca Johnson; Harbinder Sandhu; Samantha Johnson; Jacquie Jenkins; Margaret Casey; Olive Kearins; Sian Taylor-Phillips
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2018-12-29
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.