PURPOSE: To identify current patterns and trends of computed tomographic (CT) screening, including geographic data, services provided, facility type, and demographic characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In March 2003, self-referred body imaging (SRBI) centers were identified by using the Internet. Data involving geographic location, type of facility, services provided, and demographic characteristics were collected. The 2000 U.S. census data were used to compare center locality demographics with national patterns. Descriptive statistics, t tests, and regression analyses were used to evaluate data. Nonstatistical comparisons were made with results obtained from a previously published analysis. RESULTS: The number of SRBI centers totaled 161 (vs 88 in a comparative study in 2001), and centers were distributed across 31 states and Washington, DC (vs 21 in 2001). Racial demographics of center localities more closely resembled national averages in the current study, with equal percentages of whites (76.0% vs 77.1% nationally) and Hispanics (11.5% vs 12.5% nationally). Center localities continued to exhibit greater wealth and levels of education, as reflected by higher income per capita and median household income (P < .05), as well as by higher percentages of people with college and advanced degrees (P < .05). Heart scanning was the most commonly offered service (n = 152, 94%), followed by whole-body scanning (n = 135, 84%), lung scanning (n = 126, 78%), and virtual colonoscopy (n = 88, 55%). Centers in the West were more likely to offer whole-body and organ-specific scanning, compared with centers in other regions (P < .001 for virtual colonoscopy, P < .05 for head scanning). Hospital-based centers were less likely to offer services other than heart scanning (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Compared with results of a prior analysis, SRBI centers have increased and are distributed more widely in areas with a population that more closely resembles national norms. The increased trend to broaden services may suggest possible saturation of the preexisting market.
PURPOSE: To identify current patterns and trends of computed tomographic (CT) screening, including geographic data, services provided, facility type, and demographic characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In March 2003, self-referred body imaging (SRBI) centers were identified by using the Internet. Data involving geographic location, type of facility, services provided, and demographic characteristics were collected. The 2000 U.S. census data were used to compare center locality demographics with national patterns. Descriptive statistics, t tests, and regression analyses were used to evaluate data. Nonstatistical comparisons were made with results obtained from a previously published analysis. RESULTS: The number of SRBI centers totaled 161 (vs 88 in a comparative study in 2001), and centers were distributed across 31 states and Washington, DC (vs 21 in 2001). Racial demographics of center localities more closely resembled national averages in the current study, with equal percentages of whites (76.0% vs 77.1% nationally) and Hispanics (11.5% vs 12.5% nationally). Center localities continued to exhibit greater wealth and levels of education, as reflected by higher income per capita and median household income (P < .05), as well as by higher percentages of people with college and advanced degrees (P < .05). Heart scanning was the most commonly offered service (n = 152, 94%), followed by whole-body scanning (n = 135, 84%), lung scanning (n = 126, 78%), and virtual colonoscopy (n = 88, 55%). Centers in the West were more likely to offer whole-body and organ-specific scanning, compared with centers in other regions (P < .001 for virtual colonoscopy, P < .05 for head scanning). Hospital-based centers were less likely to offer services other than heart scanning (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Compared with results of a prior analysis, SRBI centers have increased and are distributed more widely in areas with a population that more closely resembles national norms. The increased trend to broaden services may suggest possible saturation of the preexisting market.
Authors: David Burling; Steve Halligan; Douglas G Altman; Wendy Atkin; Clive Bartram; Helen Fenlon; Andrea Laghi; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Roger Frost; Guido Dessey; Melinda De Villiers; Jasper Florie; Shane Foley; Lesley Honeyfield; Riccardo Iannaccone; Teresa Gallo; Clive Kay; Philippe Lefere; Andrew Lowe; Filipo Mangiapane; Jesse Marrannes; Emmanuele Neri; Giulia Nieddu; David Nicholson; Alan O'Hare; Sante Ori; Benedetta Politi; Martin Poulus; Daniele Regge; Lisa Renaut; Velauthan Rudralingham; Saverio Signoretta; Paola Vagli; Victor Van der Hulst; Jane Williams-Butt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-04-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nicolas Rodondi; Reto Auer; Vanessa de Bosset Sulzer; William A Ghali; Jacques Cornuz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 5.128