Framework for Successful Integration of Health Services Research Into a Breast Imaging Career.

Health services research (HSR) is a multidisciplinary field of inquiry that examines how health care is structured, providing valuable data on health care outcomes and delivery. Over the past few decades, a shift in the U.S. health care system toward value-based care has placed a priority on health services topics. Health services research has been central to the evolution of breast imaging over this period, with increased emphasis placed on the following: (1) design of appropriate-use criteria for imaging services; (2) determination of cost-effectiveness of imaging protocols and screening regimens guiding policy; and (3) evaluation of policy related to reimbursement for diagnostic imaging and image-guided procedures. Examples of HSR topics that can be applied directly to breast imaging include evaluation of health care availability and accessibility, analysis of health care use patterns, exploration of patient preferences, assessment of technological innovation, development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines and screening strategies, and examination of health care organization and delivery models. Breast imaging radiologists who perform HSR are uniquely positioned to advocate for patients, to promote transformative health care interventions, and to influence policy changes and public health initiatives in breast imaging through analysis of health care data and translation of their research findings. In this Training and Professional Development article, we aim to provide practical approaches to explore interest in HSR and to describe a framework for successful integration of HSR into a breast imaging career.

Helping patients navigate the immediate release of medical records: MedEd, a novel patient engagement technology.

BACKGROUND: Through online health portals, patients receive complex medical reports without interpretation from their healthcare provider. This study evaluated the usability of MedEd, a patient engagement tool providing definitions of medical terminology in breast pathology and radiology reports. METHODS: Individuals who underwent a normal screening mammogram were invited to complete semi-structured interviews where they downloaded MedEd and discussed their download experience. Acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of MedEd were evaluated. RESULTS: 143 individuals were invited to participate, and 14 semi-structured interviews were completed. Participants reported ease of downloading and navigating MedEd with concerns about privacy and others' abilities to download. Participants demonstrated high acceptability (mean 4.48/5, SD 0.95), appropriateness (mean 4.66/5, SD 0.83), and feasibility (mean 4.48/5, SD 1.04) scores. CONCLUSION: Participants expressed excitement for future use of MedEd and provided suggestions for improvements. Next steps include evaluating comprehension of real breast reports while using MedEd and expanding patient access.

Interpretation of immediately released health information: Informing patient medical education in breast oncology.

BACKGROUND: The Cures Act mandated immediately released health information. In this study, we investigated patient comprehension of mammography reports and the utility of online resources to aid report interpretation. METHODS: Patients who received a normal mammogram from February to April 2022 were invited to complete semi-structured interviews paired with health literacy questionnaires to assess patient's report comprehension before and after internet search. RESULTS: Thirteen selected patients via purposeful sampling completed interviews. Most patients described their initial understanding of the mammography report as "good" and improved to between "good" and "very good" after an internet search. Patients suggested "a little column on the side" for medical terminology, "an extra prompt" for making an appointment, or a recommendation for "good sites" to improve mammography reports. CONCLUSION: Patients varied in their ability to independently interpret medical reports and seek additional resources. While online resources marginally improved patient understanding, actionable and clear resources are needed.

Methodological Considerations in Evaluating Breast Cancer Screening Studies.

In evidence-based medicine frameworks, the highest level of evidence is derived from quantitative synthesis of double-masked, high-quality, randomly assigned controlled trials. Meta-analyses of randomly assigned controlled trials have demonstrated that screening mammography reduces breast cancer deaths. In the United States, every major guideline-producing organization has recommended screening mammography in average-risk women; however, there are controversies about age and frequency. Carefully controlled observational research studies and statistical modeling studies can address evidence gaps and inform evidence-based, contemporary screening practices. As breast imaging radiologists develop and evaluate existing and new screening tests and technologies, they will need to understand the key methodological considerations and scientific criteria used by policy makers and health service researchers to support dissemination and implementation of evidence-based screening tests. The Wilson and Jungner principles and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force general analytic framework provide structured evaluations of the effectiveness of screening tests. Key considerations in both frameworks include public health significance, natural history of disease, cost-effectiveness, and characteristics of screening tests and treatments. Rigorous evaluation of screening tests using analytic frameworks can maximize the benefits of screening tests while reducing potential harms. The purpose of this article is to review key methodological considerations and analytic frameworks used to evaluate screening studies and develop evidence-based recommendations.

Assessing the Correlation between Allostatic Load and False-Positive Image-Guided Breast Biopsies.

Background: Allostatic load (AL) is the accumulation of physiological dysregulation attributed to repeated activation of the stress response over a lifetime. We assessed the utility of AL as a prognostic measure for high-risk benign breast biopsy pathology results. Method: Eligible patients were women 18 years or older, with a false-positive outpatient breast biopsy between January and December 2022 at a tertiary academic health center. AL was calculated using 12 variables representing four physiological systems: cardiovascular (pulse rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein); metabolic (body mass index, albumin, and hemoglobin A1C); renal (creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate); and immune (white blood cell count). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between AL before biopsy and breast biopsy outcomes controlling for patients' sociodemographics. Results: In total, 170 women were included (mean age, 54.1 ± 12.9 years): 89.4% had benign and 10.6% had high-risk pathologies (radial scar/complex sclerosing lesion, atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia, flat epithelial atypia, intraductal papilloma, or lobular carcinoma in-situ). A total of 56.5% were White, 24.7% Asian, and 17.1% other races. A total of 32.5% identified as Hispanic. The mean breast cancer risk score using the Tyrer-Cuzick model was 11.9 ± 7.0. In multivariable analysis, with every one unit increase in AL, the probability of high-risk pathology increased by 37% (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.03, 1.81; p = 0.03). No significant association was seen between high-risk pathology and age, ethnicity, breast cancer risk, or area deprivation index. Conclusion: Our findings support that increased AL, a biological marker of stress, is associated with high-risk pathology among patients with false-positive breast biopsy results.

The Association Between Food Security and Mammography Screening: Cross-Sectional Survey Results From the National Health Interview Survey.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data about food insecurity within the cancer screening setting. To inform the potential need for food insecurity interventions, our study evaluated the association between food security and mammographic screening among eligible participants. METHODS: Female respondents aged 40 to 74 years in the 2019 National Health Interview Survey without history of breast cancer were included. Food insecurity was assessed using the Six-Item Food Security Scale developed by the National Center for Health Statistics. The proportion of patients who reported mammographic screening within the last year was estimated, stratified by food security. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses evaluated the association between food security and mammography screening, adjusted for potential confounders. All analyses were performed accounting for complex survey design features. RESULTS: In all, 8,956 weighted survey respondents met inclusion criteria; 90.1% were classified as having high or marginal food security, of whom 56.6% reported screening; 6.1% were classified with low food security, of whom 42.1% reported screening; and 3.8% were classified with very low food security, of whom 43.1% reported screening. In our unadjusted analyses, participants with low food security (P < .001) and very low food security (P < .001) were less likely to report screening within the last year. In our adjusted analyses, participants with food insecurity (P = .009) were less likely to report screening. DISCUSSION: In a nationally representative cross-sectional survey, participants with food insecurity were less likely to report mammography screening. Radiology practices should consider screening patients for food insecurity and social determinants of health. Evidence-based food insecurity interventions may increase adherence to mammography screening.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of English language online patient education materials in breast cancer: Is readability the only story?

BACKGROUND: Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient material to be at or below a 6th grade level to meet the general public's health literacy. Metrics such as quality, understandability, and actionability also heavily influence the usability of health information, and thus should be evaluated alongside readability. PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine: 1) Average readability scores and reporting methodologies of breast cancer readability studies; and 2) Inclusion frequency of additional health literacy-associated metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase.com, CENTRAL via Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2022 in adherence with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible studies performed readability analyses on English-language breast cancer-related OPEMs. Study characteristics, readability data, and reporting of non-readability health literacy metrics were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 30 studies yielding 4462 OPEMs. Overall, average readability was 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]), with a significant difference (p < 0.001) when grouped by OPEM categories. Commercial organizations had the highest average readability at 12.2 [11.3,13.0]; non-profit organizations had one of the lowest at 11.3 [10.6,12.0]. Readability also varied by index, with New Fog, Lexile, and FORCAST having the lowest average scores (9.4 [8.6, 10.3], 10.4 [10.0, 10.8], and 10.7 [10.2, 11.1], respectively). Only 57% of studies calculated average readability with more than two indices. Only 60% of studies assessed other OPEM metrics associated with health literacy. CONCLUSION: Average readability of breast cancer OPEMs is nearly double the AMA's recommended 6th grade level. Readability and other health literacy-associated metrics are inconsistently reported in the current literature. Standardization of future readability studies, with a focus on holistic evaluation of patient materials, may aid shared decision-making and be critical to increased screening rates and breast cancer awareness.

Assessing the Relationship between Radiology Department Research Funding and Institutional Community Inclusion and Investment.

Background Health care access disparities and lack of inclusion in clinical research have been well documented for marginalized populations. However, few studies exist examining the research funding of institutions that serve historically underserved groups. Purpose To assess the relationship between research funding awarded to radiology departments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included radiology departments awarded funding from the NIH between 2017 and 2021. The 2021 Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit were examined. The inclusivity metric measures how similar a hospital's patient population is to the surrounding community in terms of income, race and ethnicity, and education level. The community benefit metric measures charity care spending, Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue, and other community benefit spending. Linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r values) were used to evaluate the relationship between aggregate NIH radiology department research funding and measures of inclusivity and community benefit. Results Seventy-five radiology departments that received NIH funding ranging from $195 000 to $216 879 079 were included. A negative correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding received and institutional rankings for serving patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities (r = -0.34; P < .001), patients with low income (r = -0.44; P < .001), and patients with lower levels of education (r = -0.46; P < .001). No correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding and institutional rankings for charity care spending (r = -0.19; P = .06), community investment (r = -0.04; P = .68), and Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue (r = -0.10; P = .22). Conclusion Radiology departments that received more NIH research funding were less likely to serve patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities and patients who had low income or lower levels of education. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mehta and Rosen in this issue.

Information transparency with immediate release: Oncology clinician and patient perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the 21st Century Cures Act (April 2021), electronic health information (EHI) must be immediately released to patients. In this study, we sought to evaluate clinician and patient perceptions regarding this immediate release. METHODS: After surveying 33 clinicians and 30 patients, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of the initial sample, comprising 8 clinicians and 12 patients. Open-ended questions explored clinicians' and patients' perceptions of immediate release of EHI and how they adjusted to this change. RESULTS: Ten themes were identified: Interpreting Results, Strategies for Patient Interaction, Patient Experiences, Communication Strategies, Provider Limitations, Provider Experiences, Health Information Interfaces, Barriers to Patient Understanding, Types of Results, and Changes due to Immediate Release. Interviews demonstrated differences in perceived patient distress and comprehension, emphasizing the impersonal nature of electronic release and necessity for therapeutic clinician-patient communication. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients have unique insights on the role of immediate release. Understanding these perspectives will help improve communication and develop patient-centered tools (glossaries, summary pages, additional resources) to aid patient understanding of complex medical information.

The Remote Academic Radiologist: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

The importance of developing a robust remote workforce in academic radiology has come to the forefront due to several converging factors. COVID-19, and the abrupt transformation it precipitated in terms of how radiologists worked, has been the biggest impetus for change; concurrent factors such as increasing examination volumes and radiologist burnout have also contributed. How to best advance the most desirable and favorable aspects of remote work while preserving an academic environment that fulfills the tripartite mission is a critical challenge that nearly all academic institutions face today. In this article, we discuss current challenges in academic radiology, including effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, from three perspectives-the radiologist, the learner, and the health system-addressing the following topics: productivity, recruitment, wellness, clinical supervision, mentorship and research, educational engagement, radiologist access, investments in technology, and radiologist value. Throughout, we focus on the opportunities and drawbacks of remote work, to help guide its effective and reliable integration into academic radiology practices.

Mammography Screening Outreach Through Non-Primary Care-Based Services.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of patients visiting urgent care centers or emergency departments or being hospitalized who were not up to date with recommended mammography screening to assess the potential impact of non-primary care-based cancer screening interventions. METHODS: Adult participants from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey were included. Among participants not up to date with breast cancer screening guidelines based on ACR recommendations, the proportion of patients reporting an urgent care, emergency department visit, or hospitalization within the last year was estimated accounting for complex survey sampling design features. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses were then conducted to evaluate the association between sociodemographic characteristics and mammography screening adherence. RESULTS: The study included 9,139 women between the ages of 40 and 74 years without history of breast cancer. Of these respondents, 44.9% did not report mammography screening within the last year. Among participants who did not report mammography screening, 29.2% reported visiting an urgent care center, 21.8% reported visiting an emergency room, and 9.6% reported being hospitalized within the last year. The majority of patients receiving non-primary care-based services, who were not up to date with mammography screening, were from historically underserved groups including Black and Hispanic patients. CONCLUSION: Nearly 10% to 30% of participants who have not obtained recommended breast cancer screening have visited non-primary care-based services including urgent care centers or emergency rooms or have been hospitalized within the last year.

Patient, Provider, and Practice Characteristics Predicting Use of Diagnostic Imaging in Primary Care: Cross-Sectional Data From the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To determine imaging utilization rates in outpatient primary care visits and factors influencing likelihood of imaging use. METHODS: We used 2013 to 2018 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey cross-sectional data. All visits to primary care clinics during the study period were included in the sample. Descriptive statistics on visit characteristics including imaging utilization were calculated. Logistic regression analyses evaluated the influence of a variety of patient-, provider-, and practice-level variables on the odds of obtaining diagnostic imaging, further subdivided by modality (radiographs, CT, MRI, and ultrasound). The data's survey weighting was accounted for to produce valid national-level estimates of imaging use for US office-based primary care visits. RESULTS: Using survey weights, approximately 2.8 billion patient visits were included. Diagnostic imaging was ordered at 12.5% of visits with radiographs the most common (4.3%) and MRI the least common (0.8%). Imaging utilization was similar or greater among minority patients compared with White, non-Hispanic patients. Physician assistants used imaging at higher rates than physicians, in particular CT at 6.5% of visits compared with 0.7% for doctors of medicine and doctors of osteopathic medicine (odds ratio 5.67, 95% confidence interval 4.07-7.88). CONCLUSION: Disparities in rates of imaging utilization for minorities seen in other health care settings were not present in this sample of primary care visits, supporting that access to primary care is a path to promote health equity. Higher rates of imaging utilization among advanced-level practitioners highlight an opportunity to evaluate imaging appropriateness and promote equitable, high-value imaging among all practitioners.

A "High-Reliability Organization" Approach to Improve Trauma Imaging Performance.

PURPOSE: CT is the gold standard for triaging critically ill patients, including in trauma, and its use has increased over time. CT turnaround times (TATs) are frequently targeted for improvement. As opposed to linear reductionist processes such as Lean and Six Sigma, a high-reliability organization (HRO) approach focuses on culture and teams to enable rapid problem solving. The authors evaluated the HRO model to rapidly generate, trial, select, and implement improvement interventions to improve trauma patient CT performance. METHODS: All trauma patients presenting to a single institution's emergency department during a 5-month period were included. Project periods included 2-month preintervention, 1-month wash-in, and 2-month postintervention. Each initial trauma CT encounter during the wash-in and postintervention periods created job briefs in which the radiologist ensured that all involved had the pertinent clinical information and agreed on the imaging needed, thereby creating a shared mental model as well as an opportunity to raise concerns and provide ideas for improvement. RESULTS: A total of 447 patients were included: 145 preintervention, 68 wash-in, and 234 postintervention. The seven selected interventions were trauma text alert; scripted CT technologist-radiologist communication; modification of CT acquisition, processing, sending, and interpretation; and trauma mobile phones. The seven selected interventions reduced trauma patient CT median TATs by 60% (78 vs 31 min, P < .001), demonstrating the effectiveness of an HRO approach to improvement. CONCLUSIONS: An HRO-based approach was rapid in generating, trialing, selecting, and implementing improvement interventions, and the interventions were effective at substantially decreasing trauma patient CT TATs.

Impact of High Neighborhood Socioeconomic Deprivation on Access to Accredited Breast Imaging Screening and Diagnostic Facilities.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence or absence of accredited breast imaging facilities in ZIP codes with high or low neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: A retrospective ecological study design was used. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage rankings at the ZIP code level were defined by the University of Wisconsin Neighborhood Atlas Area Deprivation Index. Outcomes included the presence or absence of FDA- or ACR-accredited mammographic facilities, accredited stereotactic biopsy or breast ultrasound facilities, and ACR Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence. US Department of Agriculture rural-urban commuting area codes were used to define urban and rural status. Access to breast imaging facilities in high-disadvantage (≥97th percentile) and low-disadvantage (≤3rd percentile) ZIP codes was compared using χ2 tests, stratified by urban or rural status. RESULTS: Among 41,683 ZIP codes, 2,796 were classified as high disadvantage (1,160 rural, 1,636 urban) and 1,028 as low disadvantage (39 rural, 989 urban). High-disadvantage ZIP codes were more likely rural (P < .001) and less likely to have FDA-certified mammographic facilities (28% versus 35%, P < .001), ACR-accredited stereotactic biopsy (7% versus 15%, P < .001), breast ultrasound (9% versus 23%, P < .001), or Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence (7% versus 16%, P < .001). Among urban areas, high-disadvantage ZIP codes were less likely to have FDA-certified mammographic facilities (30% versus 36%, P = .002), ACR-accredited stereotactic biopsy (10% versus 16%, P < .001), breast ultrasound (13% versus 23%, P < .001), and Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence (10% versus 16%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: People living in ZIP codes with high socioeconomic disadvantage are less likely to have accredited breast imaging facilities within their ZIP codes, which may contribute to disparities in access to breast cancer care experienced by underserved groups living in these areas.

Fostering Patient-Centered Equitable Care in Radiology: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Patient-centered care (PCC) and equity are two of the six core domains of quality health care, according to the Institute of Medicine. Exceptional imaging care requires radiology practices to provide patient-centered (i.e., respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values) and equitable (i.e., does not vary in quality on the basis of gender, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status) care. Specific barriers that prevent the delivery of patient-centered equitable care include information gaps, breaches of trust, organizational medical culture, and financial incentives. Information gaps limit practitioners in understanding the lived experience of patients. Breaches of trust prevent patients from seeking needed medical care. Organizational medical cultures may not be centered around patient experiences. Financial incentives can impede practitioners' ability to spend the time and resources required to meet patient goals and needs. Intentional approaches that integrate core principles in both PCC and health equity are required to deliver high-quality patient-centered imaging care for diverse patient populations. The purpose of this AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review is to review the origins of the PCC movement in radiology, characterize connections between the PCC and health equity movements, and describe concrete examples of ways to foster patient-centered equitable care in radiology.