Literature DB >> 21428738

Mammography result notification letters: are they easy to read and understand?

Erin N Marcus1, Lee M Sanders, Margaret Pereyra, Yanisa Del Toro, Ada Pat Romilly, Monica Yepes, Monica Webb Hooper, Beth A Jones.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Federal law mandates that mammography centers notify women of their result in writing. The purpose of this study is to assess the readability and ease of use of the sample letters provided as a template for the notification letters centers send to patients.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of the 43 mammography result notification template letters available from the American College of Radiology and two leading transcription software services. To assess readability, we used the Flesch-Kincaid grade level scale and the Lexile framework. To assess document suitability, we used the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Acceptable scores were based on established standards: ≤6th grade for the Flesch-Kincaid level, ≤900 for the Lexile analysis, and ≥40% on the SAM scale. Means, standard deviations (SDs), and ranges were calculated by diagnostic category, as indicated by BI-RADS level. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences in readability and suitability by diagnostic category.
RESULTS: The Flesch Kincaid score ranged from 7.7 to 13.5, with a mean of 10.2. The Lexile score ranged from 880 to 1270, with a mean of 1113. The mean SAM score ranged from 16% to 36%, with a mean of 29%. Mean grade level, Lexile score, and SAM score did not vary significantly by diagnostic category. No single document had an acceptable suitability score, and only two had acceptable Lexile scores. Common deficiencies included use of the passive voice, vague wording, and technical jargon.
CONCLUSIONS: The letters we analyzed were written at levels too difficult for many patients to understand. Future investigations should explore clearer ways of communicating mammography results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21428738     DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2330

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  9 in total

1.  Urban women's preferences for learning of their mammogram result: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Darlene Drummond; Noella Dietz
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Organization Communication Factors and Abnormal Mammogram Follow-up: a Qualitative Study Among Ethnically Diverse Women Across Three Healthcare Systems.

Authors:  Jazmine D Kenny; Leah S Karliner; Karla Kerlikowske; Celia P Kaplan; Ana Fernandez-Lamothe; Nancy J Burke
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Martha Goodrich; Anne Marie McCarthy; Sally D Herschorn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Tory O Harrington; Berta Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients.

Authors:  Suzanne S Vang; Alexandra Dunn; Laurie R Margolies; Lina Jandorf
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 6.473

5.  How do breast imaging centers communicate results to women with limited English proficiency and other barriers to care?

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Feng Miao; Monica Yepes; Lee Sanders
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2014-06

6.  A Qualitative Study of Spanish-Speakers' Experience with Dense Breast Notifications in a Massachusetts Safety-Net Hospital.

Authors:  Christine M Gunn; Amy Fitzpatrick; Sarah Waugh; Michelle Carrera; Nancy R Kressin; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  The PAADRN study: a design for a randomized controlled practical clinical trial to improve bone health.

Authors:  Stephanie W Edmonds; Fredric D Wolinsky; Alan J Christensen; Xin Lu; Michael P Jones; Douglas W Roblin; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Breast Density Awareness and Knowledge in a Mammography Screening Cohort of Predominantly Hispanic Women: Does Breast Density Notification Matter?

Authors:  Jessica D Austin; Mariangela Agovino; Carmen B Rodriguez; Mary Beth Terry; Rachel C Shelton; Ying Wei; Elise Desperito; Karen M Schmitt; Rita Kukafka; Parisa Tehranifar
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Impact of Improved Screening Mammography Recall Lay Letter Readability on Patient Follow-Up.

Authors:  Derek L Nguyen; Susan C Harvey; Eniola T Oluyemi; Kelly S Myers; Lisa A Mullen; Emily B Ambinder
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 5.532

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.