Abstract A13: How do breast imaging centers communicate results: A national survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Effective communication of mammogram results is important as a step toward reducing patient anxiety and diagnostic delay. Research suggests, however, that many women do not correctly understand their results. The purpose of this study is to describe current communication practices among a nationally representative sample of mammography centers. Methods: A 35-question anonymous online survey was sent to members of the National Consortium of Breast Centers (NCBC), an association of more than 2000 physicians, nurses, administrators, radiology technicians, and others involved in breast care. Those involved in mammography were invited to participate. The survey was also distributed at the NCBC's annual meeting. It asked about centers’ verbal, written, and telephone communication with patients, whether they employ patient navigators and staff with fluency in languages other than English, and whether and how they contact patients who do not follow up. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all responses. Additional analysis to assess the association of demographic variables with responses is ongoing. Results: 221 centers completed the questionnaire. 34% were affiliated with a private radiology practice, 26% were academically affiliated, and 16% were free-standing centers. Nearly half of the centers indicated that more than a quarter of their patients lacked insurance and/or relied on government programs such as Medicaid. Ten percent of the centers indicated that more than a quarter of their patients lacked English proficiency. Ten percent of the respondents indicated that they rarely inform patients of their results at the time of their mammogram; 17% indicated that they inform patients all or most of the time; 35% indicated that the result letters they send are English only; and 12% indicated that they do not have multilingual staff or translators available to answer questions. 22% of the centers indicated that they use patient navigators. 16% of respondents indicated that they do not routinely telephone any patients about results. Chi-square analysis to detect associations between variables is ongoing. Conclusions and Implications: Our sample included a diverse cross-section of mammogram centers, many of which serve low-income patients. More than one in three centers indicated that they do not send result letters in languages other than English, which is concerning given the increasing number of patients with limited English proficiency in the U.S. and past research indicating many women do not understand their result. One in five centers use patient navigators, however, which may help ensure appropriate follow up among patients who lack easy access to healthcare. Informing patients of their results at the time of their test may also be a step more centers could take to enhance patient understanding and reduce anxiety. Citation Information: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19(10 Suppl):A13.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».