Monica L Zigman Suchsland1, Elizabeth Witwer2, Anjali R Truitt3, Danielle C Lavallee3, Ying Zhang2, Philip Posner4, Brian Do5, Patrick M Bossuyt6, Victoria Hardy2, Matthew J Thompson2. 1. Departments of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: mzigman@uw.edu. 2. Departments of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 4. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Scientific Assessment and Workforce Development Program, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 5. Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 6. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Imaging tests are one of the most sophisticated types of diagnostic tools used in health care, yet there are concerns that imaging is overused. Currently, tests are typically evaluated and implemented based on their accuracy, and there is limited knowledge about the range of patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) that imaging tests may lead to. This study explores patients' experiences and subsequent outcomes of imaging tests most notable to patients. METHODS: Adult patients from four primary care clinics who had an x-ray, CT, MRI, or ultrasound in the 12 months before recruitment participated in a single semistructured interview to recount their imaging experience. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Four themes related to PCOs were identified from 45 interviews. Participants' mean age was 53 years (25-83 years), 30 had undergone a diagnostic imaging test, and 15 underwent imaging for screening or monitoring. Themes included knowledge gained from the imaging test, its contribution to their overall health care journey, physical experiences during the test procedure, and impacts of the testing process on emotions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified various imaging test outcomes that were important to them. Measurement and reporting these outcomes should be considered more often in diagnostic research. Tools for providers and patients to discuss and utilize these outcomes may help promote shared decision making around the use and impact of imaging tests.
BACKGROUND: Imaging tests are one of the most sophisticated types of diagnostic tools used in health care, yet there are concerns that imaging is overused. Currently, tests are typically evaluated and implemented based on their accuracy, and there is limited knowledge about the range of patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) that imaging tests may lead to. This study explores patients' experiences and subsequent outcomes of imaging tests most notable to patients. METHODS: Adult patients from four primary care clinics who had an x-ray, CT, MRI, or ultrasound in the 12 months before recruitment participated in a single semistructured interview to recount their imaging experience. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Four themes related to PCOs were identified from 45 interviews. Participants' mean age was 53 years (25-83 years), 30 had undergone a diagnostic imaging test, and 15 underwent imaging for screening or monitoring. Themes included knowledge gained from the imaging test, its contribution to their overall health care journey, physical experiences during the test procedure, and impacts of the testing process on emotions. CONCLUSIONS:Patients identified various imaging test outcomes that were important to them. Measurement and reporting these outcomes should be considered more often in diagnostic research. Tools for providers and patients to discuss and utilize these outcomes may help promote shared decision making around the use and impact of imaging tests.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Gunn E Vist; Alessandro Liberati; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-05-10
Authors: J Shannon Swan; Vanessa F Furtado; Lisa A Keller; Judith Borsody Lotti; Catherine A Saltalamacchia; Inga T Lennes; Gloria M Salazar Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-12-04 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Hiske van Ravesteijn; Inge van Dijk; David Darmon; Floris van de Laar; Peter Lucassen; Tim Olde Hartman; Chris van Weel; Anne Speckens Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2011-03-06
Authors: Raymond H Thornton; Lawrence T Dauer; Elyse Shuk; Carma L Bylund; Smita C Banerjee; Erin Maloney; Lindsey B Fox; Christopher M Beattie; Hedvig Hricak; Jennifer Hay Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ruth Evans; Stuart Taylor; Sam Janes; Steve Halligan; Alison Morton; Neal Navani; Alf Oliver; Andrea Rockall; Jonathan Teague; Anne Miles Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Monica L Zigman Suchsland; Victoria Hardy; Ying Zhang; Patrick D Vigil; Kimberly L Collins; William M Woodhouse; Roger Chou; Steven D Findlay; Danielle C Lavallee; Matthew J Thompson Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2019 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Monica Zigman Suchsland; Maria Jessica Cruz; Victoria Hardy; Jeffrey Jarvik; Gianna McMillan; Anne Brittain; Matthew Thompson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Samuel W D Merriel; Victoria Hardy; Matthew J Thompson; Fiona M Walter; Willie Hamilton Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 5.532