Abstract A13: How do breast imaging centers communicate results: A national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".