Patients’ and Providers’ Preferences and Perceptions for Imaging Information for Patients: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communication of imaging results is increasingly directed to patients, but controversies remain regarding report communication from the perspectives of patients, ordering providers, and radiologists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare and contrast patients and providers with respect to their preferred source of imaging report information, preferred method of imaging report communication, and perceptions of patients' understanding of imaging reports. METHODS: We gathered preferences from patients and providers through surveys. In total, 91 patients as well as 77 physicians, 10 physician assistants, 6 nurse practitioners, and 1 other health provider completed the surveys. Chi-square and 2-tailed t tests were used to compare differences in means between the groups. Logistic regression was used to analyze the probability of an ordering provider preferring online release of imaging results as the first method of communication as a function of provider characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 94 providers who participated in the study, 53 (56%) were women and 80 (85%) were White. On average, they had 15.6 (SD 10) years of experience. Most providers preferred delaying the release of imaging reports to patients until after they had reviewed the report themselves. There was substantial provider preference heterogeneity regarding imaging report communication to patients and the timing of release. The majority of the patients (70/91, 77%) who completed the survey were women, and 19% (17/91) identified as members of racial and ethnic minoritized groups. Patients generally preferred to receive their imaging results online as soon as they were available. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that shared decision-making between patients and providers before the release of imaging results could help establish how, when, and by whom results should be delivered to patients. The study findings can be leveraged to explore options for a differentiated reporting approach that is more responsive to patient and provider needs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".