Patients' opinion of mammography screening services: immediate results versus delayed results due to interpretation by two observers.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate by random questionnaire mailings the preferences of women who have undergone mammography in our region regarding communication of mammography screening results. Questionnaires were mailed to 400 randomly selected women who were more than 35 years old and who had been treated at our institution for medical or surgical reasons. Questions regarding use of mammography screening at our institution versus services at other locations were included. The questionnaire described two possible mammography services; either a double reading service that would provide delayed reports (DRDR) with the benefit of extra cancers detected, and a service that provides immediate reports given directly to the patient by an on-site radiologist. The presentation of the services was reversed in half the questionnaires to avoid bias. Patients' choices were collected, as were demographic data. The choice of one system over the other was evaluated using the one-sample lest for binomial probability. The chi-square test was used to determine if the order of questions on the survey or the site of patients' screening mammography affected responses. The response rate was 42% (n = 168). Of these, one response informed us of the death of a patient. Of the remaining 167 respondents, 75% (n = 126) preferred the DRDR system, 13% (n = 22) preferred the system providing immediate results (p < .0001), and the other 19 respondents did not select a preference. Of the 167 respondents, 156 answered the question regarding previous screening mammography experience. Of the 105 patients who had undergone screening mammography at our institution, 78% (n = 82) preferred the DRDR system. Of the 51 patients who had undergone mammography elsewhere or who had never undergone mammography, 75% (n = 38) preferred the DRDR system. We found that ordering of presentation of the systems in the questionnaire had no effect on responses. Likewise, whether a respondent had undergone mammography at our institution had no effect on responses (p = 1.0). A statistically significant number of women who responded to our questionnaire preferred the DRDR system of reporting screening mammographic results. Educational material about double reading that we included with each patient's questionnaire could account for these results. If the use of a second interpreter is feasible and is done for batch interpretation of screening mammograms, then education of patients about this process may increase acceptance of a delayed mammographic report.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: