Kimberly K Engelman1, Amy M Cizik, Edward F Ellerbeck. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas, School of Medicine, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, MSN 1008, Kansas City, 66160, USA. kengelma@kumc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many steps in getting a mammogram may produce a less than satisfactory experience. Dissatisfaction with mammography could lead to lower routine mammography adherence. The purpose of this study was to use qualitative research methods to assess patient satisfaction with all stages of the mammography experience. METHODS: Eleven focus groups were conducted with 103 women in rural (N=6) and urban (N=5) communities. Separate groups were held for African-American, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic women. Participants spoke English, were 40 years of age or older, had a mammogram within the past three years, and had no history of cancer. Transcripts were analyzed for major themes related to mammography satisfaction. RESULTS: Participants described 39 variables that affected their mammography satisfaction that may be categorized into seven primary themes: (1) appointment scheduling, (2) facility, (3) general exam, (4) embarrassment, (5) exam discomfort/pain, (6) treatment by the technologist, and (7) reporting results. The most common issues voiced were convenience and ease of scheduling appointments and follow-up tests, waiting room time and comfort, treatment by technologists, pain, and results reporting procedure and timing. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction was not limited to the mammography procedure itself, but encompassed the entire experience from appointment scheduling to receipt of results and arranging follow-up. These findings indicated a variety of areas that mammography facilities might address to enhance mammography satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: Many steps in getting a mammogram may produce a less than satisfactory experience. Dissatisfaction with mammography could lead to lower routine mammography adherence. The purpose of this study was to use qualitative research methods to assess patient satisfaction with all stages of the mammography experience. METHODS: Eleven focus groups were conducted with 103 women in rural (N=6) and urban (N=5) communities. Separate groups were held for African-American, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic women. Participants spoke English, were 40 years of age or older, had a mammogram within the past three years, and had no history of cancer. Transcripts were analyzed for major themes related to mammography satisfaction. RESULTS:Participants described 39 variables that affected their mammography satisfaction that may be categorized into seven primary themes: (1) appointment scheduling, (2) facility, (3) general exam, (4) embarrassment, (5) exam discomfort/pain, (6) treatment by the technologist, and (7) reporting results. The most common issues voiced were convenience and ease of scheduling appointments and follow-up tests, waiting room time and comfort, treatment by technologists, pain, and results reporting procedure and timing. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction was not limited to the mammography procedure itself, but encompassed the entire experience from appointment scheduling to receipt of results and arranging follow-up. These findings indicated a variety of areas that mammography facilities might address to enhance mammography satisfaction.
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Thad Benefield; Mary W Marsh; Bruce F Schroeder; Danielle D Durham; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Lori L DuBenske; Sarina Schrager; Helene McDowell; Lee G Wilke; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: Breast J Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 2.431
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
Authors: J Offman; M Wilson; M Lamont; H Birke; E Kutt; S Marriage; Y Loughrey; S Hudson; A Hartley; J Smith; B Eckersley; F Dungey; D Parmar; J Patnick; S W Duffy Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 7.640