Feasibility and Acceptability of Conducting a Randomized Clinical Trial Designed to Improve Interpretation of Screening Mammography

Purpose To describe recruitment, enrollment, and participation in a study of US radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education (CME) interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography. Methods We collected recruitment,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic radiology 2013-11, Vol.20 (11), p.1389-1398
Hauptverfasser: Carney, Patricia A., PhD, Bogart, Andy, MS, Sickles, Edward A., MD, Smith, Robert, PhD, Buist, Diana S.M., PhD, Kerlikowske, Karla, MD, Onega, Tracy, PhD, Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD, Rosenberg, Robert, MD, Yankaskas, Bonnie C., PhD, Geller, Berta M., EdD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1398
container_issue 11
container_start_page 1389
container_title Academic radiology
container_volume 20
creator Carney, Patricia A., PhD
Bogart, Andy, MS
Sickles, Edward A., MD
Smith, Robert, PhD
Buist, Diana S.M., PhD
Kerlikowske, Karla, MD
Onega, Tracy, PhD
Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD
Rosenberg, Robert, MD
Yankaskas, Bonnie C., PhD
Geller, Berta M., EdD
description Purpose To describe recruitment, enrollment, and participation in a study of US radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education (CME) interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography. Methods We collected recruitment, consent, and intervention-completion information as part of a large study involving radiologists in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Vermont. Consenting radiologists were randomized to receive either a 1-day live, expert-led educational session; to receive a self-paced DVD with similar content; or to a control group (delayed intervention). The impact of the interventions was assessed using a preintervention–postintervention test set design. All activities were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Results Of 403 eligible radiologists, 151 of 403 (37.5%) consented to participate in the trial and 119 of 151 (78.8%) completed the preintervention test set, leaving 119 available for randomization to one of the two intervention groups or to controls. Female radiologists were more likely than male radiologists to consent to and complete the study ( P  = .03). Consenting radiologists who completed all study activities were more likely to have been interpreting mammography for 10 years or less compared to radiologists who consented and did not complete all study activities or did not consent at all. The live intervention group was more likely to report their intent to change their clinical practice as a result of the intervention compared to those who received the DVD (50% versus 17.6%, P  = .02). The majority of participants in both interventions groups felt the interventions were a useful way to receive CME mammography credits. Conclusions Community radiologists found interactive interventions designed to improve interpretative mammography performance acceptable and useful for clinical practice. This suggests CME credits for radiologists should, in part, be for examining practice skills.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4152937</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1076633213003978</els_id><sourcerecordid>1443407133</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c510t-6540334a48dbb81c15d7f3bc0e00a8eda8c93ff1c941c584473aa9fdc3ad56eb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kkFv1DAQhSMEoqXwBzigHLkkeGIncSRUqVoorFSERMvZcuzJ1ktiB9u70nLlj-Nolwo4cLGt8XtvLH-TZS-BlECgebMtpfKyrAjQkvCSQPsoOwfe8oIR1jxOZ9I2RUNpdZY9C2FLCNQNp0-zs4oBdLSG8-znNcpgejOaeMil1fmVUjhHeaq4IV85q3cqGrvJZf4lSdxkfqDOV6OxRskxv_Mmre8wmI1N9ejy9TR7t8d8bSP62WOU0Ti7hN0qj2iXrE9ymtzGy_n-8Dx7Msgx4IvTfpF9vX5_t_pY3Hz-sF5d3RSqBhKLpmaEUiYZ133PQUGt24H2iiAhkqOWXHV0GEB1DFTNGWuplN2gFZW6brCnF9nlMXfe9RNqhTZ6OYrZm0n6g3DSiL9vrLkXG7cXDOqqo20KeH0K8O77DkMUkwkKx1FadLsggDHKSAuUJml1lCrvQvA4PLQBIhZ6YisWemKhJwgXiV4yvfrzgQ-W37iS4O1RgOmb9ga9CMqgVaiNRxWFdub_-Zf_2NUJ4jc8YNi6nbcJgAARKkHE7TI_y_gAJYR2Lae_AAy7xDU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1443407133</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Feasibility and Acceptability of Conducting a Randomized Clinical Trial Designed to Improve Interpretation of Screening Mammography</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Carney, Patricia A., PhD ; Bogart, Andy, MS ; Sickles, Edward A., MD ; Smith, Robert, PhD ; Buist, Diana S.M., PhD ; Kerlikowske, Karla, MD ; Onega, Tracy, PhD ; Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD ; Rosenberg, Robert, MD ; Yankaskas, Bonnie C., PhD ; Geller, Berta M., EdD</creator><creatorcontrib>Carney, Patricia A., PhD ; Bogart, Andy, MS ; Sickles, Edward A., MD ; Smith, Robert, PhD ; Buist, Diana S.M., PhD ; Kerlikowske, Karla, MD ; Onega, Tracy, PhD ; Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD ; Rosenberg, Robert, MD ; Yankaskas, Bonnie C., PhD ; Geller, Berta M., EdD</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To describe recruitment, enrollment, and participation in a study of US radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education (CME) interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography. Methods We collected recruitment, consent, and intervention-completion information as part of a large study involving radiologists in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Vermont. Consenting radiologists were randomized to receive either a 1-day live, expert-led educational session; to receive a self-paced DVD with similar content; or to a control group (delayed intervention). The impact of the interventions was assessed using a preintervention–postintervention test set design. All activities were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Results Of 403 eligible radiologists, 151 of 403 (37.5%) consented to participate in the trial and 119 of 151 (78.8%) completed the preintervention test set, leaving 119 available for randomization to one of the two intervention groups or to controls. Female radiologists were more likely than male radiologists to consent to and complete the study ( P  = .03). Consenting radiologists who completed all study activities were more likely to have been interpreting mammography for 10 years or less compared to radiologists who consented and did not complete all study activities or did not consent at all. The live intervention group was more likely to report their intent to change their clinical practice as a result of the intervention compared to those who received the DVD (50% versus 17.6%, P  = .02). The majority of participants in both interventions groups felt the interventions were a useful way to receive CME mammography credits. Conclusions Community radiologists found interactive interventions designed to improve interpretative mammography performance acceptable and useful for clinical practice. This suggests CME credits for radiologists should, in part, be for examining practice skills.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1076-6332</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-4046</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24119351</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Clinical Competence ; Education, Medical, Continuing ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Humans ; interpretive accuracy ; Male ; Mammography - standards ; Mass Screening ; physician education ; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards ; Quality Improvement ; Radiology ; Radiology - education ; Screening mammography</subject><ispartof>Academic radiology, 2013-11, Vol.20 (11), p.1389-1398</ispartof><rights>AUR</rights><rights>2013 AUR</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c510t-6540334a48dbb81c15d7f3bc0e00a8eda8c93ff1c941c584473aa9fdc3ad56eb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c510t-6540334a48dbb81c15d7f3bc0e00a8eda8c93ff1c941c584473aa9fdc3ad56eb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,782,786,887,3552,27931,27932,46002</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24119351$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bogart, Andy, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sickles, Edward A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Robert, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buist, Diana S.M., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerlikowske, Karla, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, Robert, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yankaskas, Bonnie C., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geller, Berta M., EdD</creatorcontrib><title>Feasibility and Acceptability of Conducting a Randomized Clinical Trial Designed to Improve Interpretation of Screening Mammography</title><title>Academic radiology</title><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose To describe recruitment, enrollment, and participation in a study of US radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education (CME) interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography. Methods We collected recruitment, consent, and intervention-completion information as part of a large study involving radiologists in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Vermont. Consenting radiologists were randomized to receive either a 1-day live, expert-led educational session; to receive a self-paced DVD with similar content; or to a control group (delayed intervention). The impact of the interventions was assessed using a preintervention–postintervention test set design. All activities were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Results Of 403 eligible radiologists, 151 of 403 (37.5%) consented to participate in the trial and 119 of 151 (78.8%) completed the preintervention test set, leaving 119 available for randomization to one of the two intervention groups or to controls. Female radiologists were more likely than male radiologists to consent to and complete the study ( P  = .03). Consenting radiologists who completed all study activities were more likely to have been interpreting mammography for 10 years or less compared to radiologists who consented and did not complete all study activities or did not consent at all. The live intervention group was more likely to report their intent to change their clinical practice as a result of the intervention compared to those who received the DVD (50% versus 17.6%, P  = .02). The majority of participants in both interventions groups felt the interventions were a useful way to receive CME mammography credits. Conclusions Community radiologists found interactive interventions designed to improve interpretative mammography performance acceptable and useful for clinical practice. This suggests CME credits for radiologists should, in part, be for examining practice skills.</description><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Continuing</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>interpretive accuracy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mammography - standards</subject><subject>Mass Screening</subject><subject>physician education</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards</subject><subject>Quality Improvement</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiology - education</subject><subject>Screening mammography</subject><issn>1076-6332</issn><issn>1878-4046</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kkFv1DAQhSMEoqXwBzigHLkkeGIncSRUqVoorFSERMvZcuzJ1ktiB9u70nLlj-Nolwo4cLGt8XtvLH-TZS-BlECgebMtpfKyrAjQkvCSQPsoOwfe8oIR1jxOZ9I2RUNpdZY9C2FLCNQNp0-zs4oBdLSG8-znNcpgejOaeMil1fmVUjhHeaq4IV85q3cqGrvJZf4lSdxkfqDOV6OxRskxv_Mmre8wmI1N9ejy9TR7t8d8bSP62WOU0Ti7hN0qj2iXrE9ymtzGy_n-8Dx7Msgx4IvTfpF9vX5_t_pY3Hz-sF5d3RSqBhKLpmaEUiYZ133PQUGt24H2iiAhkqOWXHV0GEB1DFTNGWuplN2gFZW6brCnF9nlMXfe9RNqhTZ6OYrZm0n6g3DSiL9vrLkXG7cXDOqqo20KeH0K8O77DkMUkwkKx1FadLsggDHKSAuUJml1lCrvQvA4PLQBIhZ6YisWemKhJwgXiV4yvfrzgQ-W37iS4O1RgOmb9ga9CMqgVaiNRxWFdub_-Zf_2NUJ4jc8YNi6nbcJgAARKkHE7TI_y_gAJYR2Lae_AAy7xDU</recordid><startdate>20131101</startdate><enddate>20131101</enddate><creator>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</creator><creator>Bogart, Andy, MS</creator><creator>Sickles, Edward A., MD</creator><creator>Smith, Robert, PhD</creator><creator>Buist, Diana S.M., PhD</creator><creator>Kerlikowske, Karla, MD</creator><creator>Onega, Tracy, PhD</creator><creator>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</creator><creator>Rosenberg, Robert, MD</creator><creator>Yankaskas, Bonnie C., PhD</creator><creator>Geller, Berta M., EdD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131101</creationdate><title>Feasibility and Acceptability of Conducting a Randomized Clinical Trial Designed to Improve Interpretation of Screening Mammography</title><author>Carney, Patricia A., PhD ; Bogart, Andy, MS ; Sickles, Edward A., MD ; Smith, Robert, PhD ; Buist, Diana S.M., PhD ; Kerlikowske, Karla, MD ; Onega, Tracy, PhD ; Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD ; Rosenberg, Robert, MD ; Yankaskas, Bonnie C., PhD ; Geller, Berta M., EdD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c510t-6540334a48dbb81c15d7f3bc0e00a8eda8c93ff1c941c584473aa9fdc3ad56eb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Continuing</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>interpretive accuracy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mammography - standards</topic><topic>Mass Screening</topic><topic>physician education</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards</topic><topic>Quality Improvement</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiology - education</topic><topic>Screening mammography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bogart, Andy, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sickles, Edward A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Robert, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buist, Diana S.M., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerlikowske, Karla, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, Robert, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yankaskas, Bonnie C., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geller, Berta M., EdD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</au><au>Bogart, Andy, MS</au><au>Sickles, Edward A., MD</au><au>Smith, Robert, PhD</au><au>Buist, Diana S.M., PhD</au><au>Kerlikowske, Karla, MD</au><au>Onega, Tracy, PhD</au><au>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</au><au>Rosenberg, Robert, MD</au><au>Yankaskas, Bonnie C., PhD</au><au>Geller, Berta M., EdD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Feasibility and Acceptability of Conducting a Randomized Clinical Trial Designed to Improve Interpretation of Screening Mammography</atitle><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><date>2013-11-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1389</spage><epage>1398</epage><pages>1389-1398</pages><issn>1076-6332</issn><eissn>1878-4046</eissn><abstract>Purpose To describe recruitment, enrollment, and participation in a study of US radiologists invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial of two continuing medical education (CME) interventions designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography. Methods We collected recruitment, consent, and intervention-completion information as part of a large study involving radiologists in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Vermont. Consenting radiologists were randomized to receive either a 1-day live, expert-led educational session; to receive a self-paced DVD with similar content; or to a control group (delayed intervention). The impact of the interventions was assessed using a preintervention–postintervention test set design. All activities were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Results Of 403 eligible radiologists, 151 of 403 (37.5%) consented to participate in the trial and 119 of 151 (78.8%) completed the preintervention test set, leaving 119 available for randomization to one of the two intervention groups or to controls. Female radiologists were more likely than male radiologists to consent to and complete the study ( P  = .03). Consenting radiologists who completed all study activities were more likely to have been interpreting mammography for 10 years or less compared to radiologists who consented and did not complete all study activities or did not consent at all. The live intervention group was more likely to report their intent to change their clinical practice as a result of the intervention compared to those who received the DVD (50% versus 17.6%, P  = .02). The majority of participants in both interventions groups felt the interventions were a useful way to receive CME mammography credits. Conclusions Community radiologists found interactive interventions designed to improve interpretative mammography performance acceptable and useful for clinical practice. This suggests CME credits for radiologists should, in part, be for examining practice skills.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>24119351</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1076-6332
ispartof Academic radiology, 2013-11, Vol.20 (11), p.1389-1398
issn 1076-6332
1878-4046
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4152937
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Clinical Competence
Education, Medical, Continuing
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
interpretive accuracy
Male
Mammography - standards
Mass Screening
physician education
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards
Quality Improvement
Radiology
Radiology - education
Screening mammography
title Feasibility and Acceptability of Conducting a Randomized Clinical Trial Designed to Improve Interpretation of Screening Mammography
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-03T23%3A21%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Feasibility%20and%20Acceptability%20of%20Conducting%20a%20Randomized%20Clinical%20Trial%20Designed%20to%20Improve%20Interpretation%20of%20Screening%20Mammography&rft.jtitle=Academic%20radiology&rft.au=Carney,%20Patricia%20A.,%20PhD&rft.date=2013-11-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1389&rft.epage=1398&rft.pages=1389-1398&rft.issn=1076-6332&rft.eissn=1878-4046&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1443407133%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1443407133&rft_id=info:pmid/24119351&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1076633213003978&rfr_iscdi=true