Literature DB >> 21188664

Patients' perception of care during image-guided breast biopsy in a rural community breast center: communication matters.

Catherine J Brandon1, Patricia B Mullan.   

Abstract

This retrospective study surveyed women about their experience with image-guided breast biopsies in a rural cancer center. Our study objectives were to determine: women's perception of their emotional and physical comfort during the biopsy; the clarity and acceptability of the communication about the biopsy, as well as the methods used to provide the results of her biopsy and treatment options; and the overall impressions of the technical and personal care she received. A single mailed survey of 500 biopsy patients. The response rate was 43% (n = 215). Prior to their biopsy, 22% had been concerned that the biopsy would be painful and 43% were concerned that the biopsy might show cancer. Almost all women rated the communication about the biopsy procedure as understandable (99%) and accurately reflecting their experience (99%.). Most (77%) patients characterized the biopsy as producing minimal discomfort, although 5% disagreed. Most patients (98%) characterized their physician and technologists as caring about their emotional and physical comfort. Most patients felt that the typical 1-day wait to receive the results of their biopsy was reasonable (90%) and that the use of the phone to convey the results was acceptable (90%). On comparing patients with a diagnosis of cancer to those without, there was no difference in the level of satisfaction with the use of the phone to communicate biopsy results. This study offers encouragement that communication practices can alleviate the anxiety of women undergoing image-guided breast cancer biopsies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21188664     DOI: 10.1007/s13187-010-0178-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  8 in total

1.  Informing patients of diagnostic mammography results: mammographer's opinions.

Authors:  M P Braeuning; J L Earp; S M O'Brien; M J Schell; A C Denham; E D Pisano; M S O'Malley
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Satisfaction and anxiety for women during investigation of an abnormal screening mammogram.

Authors:  T Gregory Hislop; Susan R Harris; Jeremy Jackson; Sally E Thorne; Eunice J Rousseau; Andrew J Coldman; Judith A Vestrup; Charles J Wright; Ivo A Olivotto
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 3.  Effect on health-related outcomes of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners: a systematic review of trials.

Authors:  Simon J Griffin; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Marijcke W M Veltman; Susan Gillard; Julie Grant; Moira Stewart
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  A quality review of the timeliness of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in an integrated breast center.

Authors:  Jeffrey Landercasper; Jared H Linebarger; Richard L Ellis; Michelle A Mathiason; Jeanne M Johnson; Kristen A Marcou; Brooke M De Maiffe; Gayle S Jago
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  Communicating results of diagnostic mammography: what do patients think?

Authors:  K S Levin; M P Braeuning; M S O'Malley; E D Pisano; E D Barrett; J A Earp
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Breast core-needle biopsy: clinical trial of relaxation technique versus medication versus no intervention for anxiety reduction.

Authors:  Mary E Bugbee; David K Wellisch; Isobel M Arnott; James R Maxwell; Daniel L Kirsch; James W Sayre; Lawrence W Bassett
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-11-24       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Mark Kettler; Andrea J Cook; Berta M Geller; Leah Karliner; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin Aiello Bowles; Diana S Buist; Thomas H Gallagher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 8.  Patient-doctor communication.

Authors:  Carol Teutsch
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.456

  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services.

Authors:  Alexander G Mathioudakis; Minna Salakari; Liisa Pylkkanen; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Anke Bramesfeld; Silvia Deandrea; Donata Lerda; Luciana Neamtiu; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; Ivan Solà; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2019-03-24       Impact factor: 3.894

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.