OBJECTIVE: One might speculate that radiologists who enjoy mammography may exhibit better performance than radiologists who do not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-one radiologists at three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries completed a survey about their characteristics, clinical practices, and attitudes related to screening mammography. Survey results were linked with BCSC performance data for 662,084 screening and 33,977 diagnostic mammograms. Using logistic regression, we modeled the odds of an abnormal interpretation, cancer detection, sensitivity, and specificity among radiologists who reported they enjoy interpreting screening mammograms compared with those who do not. RESULTS: Overall, 44.3% of radiologists reported not enjoying interpreting screening mammograms. Radiologists who reported enjoying interpreting screening mammograms were more likely to be women, spend at least 20% of their time in breast imaging, have a primary academic affiliation, read more than 2,000 mammograms per year, and be salaried. Enjoyment was not associated with screening mammography performance. Among diagnostic mammograms, there was a significant increase in sensitivity among radiologists who reported enjoyment (85.2%) compared with those who did not (78.2%). In models adjusting for radiologist characteristics, similar trends were found; however, no statistically significant associations remained. CONCLUSION: Almost one half of radiologists actively interpreting mammograms do not enjoy that part of their job. Once we adjusted for radiologist and patient characteristics, we found that reported enjoyment was not related to performance in our study, although suggestive trends were noted.
OBJECTIVE: One might speculate that radiologists who enjoy mammography may exhibit better performance than radiologists who do not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-one radiologists at three Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries completed a survey about their characteristics, clinical practices, and attitudes related to screening mammography. Survey results were linked with BCSC performance data for 662,084 screening and 33,977 diagnostic mammograms. Using logistic regression, we modeled the odds of an abnormal interpretation, cancer detection, sensitivity, and specificity among radiologists who reported they enjoy interpreting screening mammograms compared with those who do not. RESULTS: Overall, 44.3% of radiologists reported not enjoying interpreting screening mammograms. Radiologists who reported enjoying interpreting screening mammograms were more likely to be women, spend at least 20% of their time in breast imaging, have a primary academic affiliation, read more than 2,000 mammograms per year, and be salaried. Enjoyment was not associated with screening mammography performance. Among diagnostic mammograms, there was a significant increase in sensitivity among radiologists who reported enjoyment (85.2%) compared with those who did not (78.2%). In models adjusting for radiologist characteristics, similar trends were found; however, no statistically significant associations remained. CONCLUSION: Almost one half of radiologists actively interpreting mammograms do not enjoy that part of their job. Once we adjusted for radiologist and patient characteristics, we found that reported enjoyment was not related to performance in our study, although suggestive trends were noted.
Authors: Lawrence W Bassett; Barbara S Monsees; Robert A Smith; Lily Wang; Parizad Hooshi; Dione M Farria; James W Sayre; Stephen A Feig; Valerie P Jackson Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore; Linn A Abraham; Martha S Gerrity; R Edward Hendrick; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; Gary R Cutter; Steven P Poplack; Carl J D'Orsi Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert Rosenberg; Robert J Reid; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P A Carney; B M Geller; H Moffett; M Ganger; M Sewell; W E Barlow; N Stalnaker; S H Taplin; C Sisk; V L Ernster; H A Wilkie; B Yankaskas; S P Poplack; N Urban; M M West; R D Rosenberg; S Michael; T D Mercurio; R Ballard-Barbash Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Berta M Geller; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Barbara Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Diana M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Sebastien Haneuse; Deirdre Hill; Matthew G Wallis; Diana Miglioretti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Natalia V Oster; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Lisa M Reisch; Tracy Onega; Donald L Weaver; Paul Frederick; Joann G Elmore Journal: Breast Date: 2014-12-29 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Edward A Sickles; Berta M Geller; Stephen A Feig; Sara Jackson; David Brown; Andrea Cook; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Diana L Miglioretti; Joann G Elmore Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 3.173