Literature DB >> 15973693

Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey.

Dione M Farria1, Maria E Schmidt, Barbara S Monsees, Robert A Smith, Charles Hildebolt, Roberta Yoffie, Debra L Monticciolo, Stephen A Feig, Lawrence W Bassett.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Objective data and anecdotal reports have suggested that access to mammography may be declining because of facility closures and difficulty in recruiting and retaining radiologists and radiologic technologists. To gain insight into the practice patterns, use of emerging technologies, and concerns of breast imagers in current practice, the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) conducted a national survey of breast imaging practices in the U.S.
METHODS: Between October 2003 and April 2004, the SBI conducted a survey of the SBI membership database, and received completed surveys from 575 breast imaging practices in the U.S. Responses to the survey regarding practice characteristics, the utilization of standard and emerging technologies, staffing, malpractice, finance, and morale were analyzed.
RESULTS: Job vacancies for radiologists who read mammograms were reported in 163 practices (29%), 59 of which (10%) had 2 or more openings. A higher proportion of practices with job openings had long appointment waiting times for asymptomatic women when compared with fully staffed practices. Unfilled fellowship positions also were common, with 41 of 65 practices that offer fellowships reporting 47 openings. Among 554 responding practices, 55% reported that someone in their practice was sued because of a mammography related case within the past 5 years, and 50% of practices reported that the threat of lawsuits made radiologist staffing "moderately" or "a lot" more difficult. Of 521 responding practices, 35% reported financial losses in 2002. One in 5 respondents reported that they would prefer to spend less time in mammography, and fewer than 1 in 3 would recommend a breast imaging fellowship to a relative or friend. Emerging technologies, such as breast magnetic resonance imaging and screening ultrasound, currently are being performed in many practices.
CONCLUSIONS: The survey results provide support for anecdotal reports that breast imaging practices face significant challenges and stresses, including shortages of key personnel, a lack of trainees, malpractice concerns, financial constraints, increased workload due to emerging technologies, low appeal of breast imaging as a career specialty, and the steady rise in the population of women of screening age. (c) 2005 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15973693     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  19 in total

1.  Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: a phantom study.

Authors:  Nicholas A Shkumat; Adam Springer; Christopher M Walker; Eric M Rohren; Wei T Yang; Beatriz E Adrada; Elsa Arribas; Selin Carkaci; Hubert H Chuang; Lumarie Santiago; Osama R Mawlawi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.

Authors:  Jacqueline R Halladay; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling; Camille Alexander
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy L Onega; Jessica Germino; Ellen S O'Meara; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer S Haas; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  The future of mammography: radiology residents' experiences, attitudes, and opinions.

Authors:  Shrujal S Baxi; Jacqueline G Snow; Laura Liberman; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Mammography capacity and appointment wait times: barriers to breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Elena B Elkin; Jacqueline G Snow; Nicole M Leoce; Coral L Atoria; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  Assessment of characteristics of capacity among breast cancer screening facilities.

Authors:  Vicki L Collie-Akers; Cynthia Warrick; Li Zhu; Misha Granado; Kymeiria Ingram
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2012-06

7.  Breast cancer early detection: A phased approach to implementation.

Authors:  Ophira Ginsburg; Cheng-Har Yip; Ari Brooks; Anna Cabanes; Maira Caleffi; Jorge Antonio Dunstan Yataco; Bishal Gyawali; Valerie McCormack; Myrna McLaughlin de Anderson; Ravi Mehrotra; Alejandro Mohar; Raul Murillo; Lydia E Pace; Electra D Paskett; Anya Romanoff; Anne F Rositch; John R Scheel; Miriam Schneidman; Karla Unger-Saldaña; Verna Vanderpuye; Tsu-Yin Wu; Safina Yuma; Allison Dvaladze; Catherine Duggan; Benjamin O Anderson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Analysis of malpractice claims in mammography: a complex issue.

Authors:  A Fileni; N Magnavita; L Pescarini
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 3.469

9.  An assessment of the quality of mammography care at facilities treating medically vulnerable populations.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Sebastien J-P A Haneuse; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Bonnie Yankaskas; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.