Patient and practitioner perspectives on the design of a simulated affective touch device to reduce procedural anxiety associated with radiotherapy: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to elicit the views of relevant stakeholders on the design of a device using simulated affective touch to reduce procedural anxiety surrounding radiotherapy and imaging. DESIGN: This qualitative study collected data from focus groups which were then analysed using inductive thematic analysis in line with Braun and Clarke's methods. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Twenty patients and carers were recruited, as well as 10 healthcare practitioners involved in either delivering radiotherapy or imaging procedures. RESULTS: Patients, carers and healthcare practitioners agreed on some aspects of the device design, such as ensuring the device is warm and flexible in where it can be used on the body. However, patient and healthcare practitioner cohorts had at times differing viewpoints. For example, healthcare practitioners provided professional perspectives and required easy cleaning of the device. Meanwhile patients focused on anxiety-relieving factors, such as the tactile sensation of the device being either a vibration or pulsation. There was no consensus on who should control the device. CONCLUSIONS: The desired features of a simulated affective touch device have been investigated. Different priorities of patients and their carers and healthcare practitioners were evident. Any design must incorporate such features as to appease both groups. Areas where no consensus was reached could be further explored, alongside including further patient and public involvement in the form of a project advisory group.

The patient perspective in the era of personalized medicine: What about scanxiety?

Frequency of scanning has accelerated in the era of personalized medicine and is related, but not restricted, to the exploding number of clinical trials for new cancer treatments. Particularly in drug trials, but also in clinical practice, patients are followed up by scans frequently, which may vary from every 6 to 12 weeks until progression. The authors aimed to raise awareness for this underreported but widely present "Sword of Damocles" scan-related issue also referred to as 'scanxiety.'

Attitudes towards child life specialists and their utilization within pediatric urology.

INTRODUCTION: The American Academy of Pediatrics views Certified Child Life Specialists (CCLS) as "an important component of pediatric hospital based care to address the psychosocial concerns that accompany hospitalization." CCLSs help patients and parents navigate the complex medical system in order to minimize psychosocial and emotional stress by implementing age appropriate coping skills. This survey explores the perceptions towards CCLS and their utilization with pediatric urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Survey Monkey questionnaire was developed and distributed to Society for Pediatric Urology members (SPU) (n = 314). Providers were queried about CCLS implementation and their perception regarding CCLS's role in improving health related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: There was a 34.1% response rate (n = 107). Ninety-four providers (87.9%) reported CCLS interaction with their patients and greater than 95% of providers felt CCLS imparted some degree of benefit to their patients' HRQOL. Only 4.7% felt CCLS offered no benefit to the patients. CCLS were consistently used in a minority of inpatient and outpatient settings and never in the radiological setting. They were used at least 50% of the time by the most responders in inpatient and radiological setting and nearly the same in the ambulatory surgery setting. CONCLUSIONS: This survey illuminates that the majority of providers interact with CCLS in clinical settings and believe their involvement is beneficial. However, CCLSs are under-utilized during invasive urological procedures where patient anxiety is high. By understanding perceptions of providers and their practice patterns we can overcome barriers to CCLS use and improve their quality of life.

Development and Validation of the MiPrep Survey: An Instrument Assessing Patients' Perceived Preparation for Medical Interventions Including Medical Imaging, Radiotherapy, and Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adequately preparing patients for medical interventions is an important component of quality healthcare. Nevertheless, few instruments for assessing patients' preparation exist. OBJECTIVES: To develop a psychometrically rigorous instrument to assess patients' perceptions of the quality of preparation. METHODS: An instrument to measure patients' preparation for medical interventions (MiPrep) was developed and tested with patients undergoing medical imaging, radiotherapy, or surgery. Patients were recruited and asked to complete 2 surveys. Survey A assessed patient and intervention characteristics. Survey B (postintervention) contained MiPrep to assess validity (face, content, and construct) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest). RESULTS: A total of 869 (85%) patients consented to participate and 551 (63%) returned the postintervention survey. Face and content validity were demonstrated. Exploratory factor analysis identified 2 survey modules: receipt and adequacy of information (2 domains) and overall appraisal of patient-centered care (1 domain). Reliability was evidenced by adequate internal consistency (Cronbach α 0.81-0.89) and item-total correlations higher than 0.20. Nevertheless, individual item test-retest reliability requires further confirmation. The final instrument contained 27 items. CONCLUSIONS: The MiPrep instrument has evidence of being a valid and reliable instrument of preparation for medical interventions. Healthcare providers can use the instrument as a quality assurance tool to identify areas for improvement and areas of excellence in patients' preparation. Future studies should verify these findings in other populations and examine the divergent and predictive validity of the instrument.

Understanding Why Patients No-Show: Observations of 2.9 Million Outpatient Imaging Visits Over 16 Years.

PURPOSE: To understand why patients "no-show" for imaging appointments, and to provide new insights for improving resource utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of nearly 2.9 million outpatient examinations in our radiology information system from 2000 to 2015 at our multihospital academic institution. No-show visits were identified by the "reason code" entry "NOSHOW" in our radiology information system. We restricted data to radiography, CT, mammography, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine examinations that included all studied variables. These variables included modality, patient age, appointment time, day of week, and scheduling lead time. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with no-show visits. RESULTS: Out of 2,893,626 patient visits that met our inclusion criteria, there were 94,096 no-shows during the 16-year period. Rates of no-show visits varied from 3.36% in 2000 to 2.26% in 2015. The effect size for no-shows was strongest for modality and scheduling lead time. Mammography had the highest modality no-show visit rate of 6.99% (odds ratio [OR] 5.38, P < .001) compared with the lowest modality rate of 1.25% in radiography. Scheduling lead time greater than 6 months was associated with more no-show visits than scheduling within 1 week (OR 3.18, P < .001). Patients 60 years and older were less likely to miss imaging appointments than patients under 40 (OR 0.70, P < .001). Mondays and Saturdays had significantly higher rates of no-show than Sundays (OR 1.52 and 1.51, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Modality type and scheduling lead time were the most predictive factors of no-show. This may be used to guide new interventions such as targeted reminders and flexible scheduling.

Raised Anxiety Levels Among Outpatients Preparing to Undergo a Medical Imaging Procedure: Prevalence and Correlates.

PURPOSE: To examine the percentage of patients with raised state anxiety levels before undergoing a medical imaging procedure; their attribution of procedural-related anxiety or worry; and sociodemographic, health, and procedural characteristics associated with raised state anxiety levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was undertaken in the outpatient medical imaging department at a major public hospital in Australia, with institutional board approval. Adult outpatients undergoing a medical imaging procedure (CT, x-ray, MRI, ultrasound, angiography, or fluoroscopy) completed a preprocedural survey. Anxiety was measured by the short-form state scale of the six-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI: Y-6). The number and percentage of participants who reported raised anxiety levels (defined as a STAI: Y-6 score ≥ 33.16) and their attribution of procedural-related anxiety or worry were calculated. Characteristics associated with raised anxiety were examined using multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 548 (86%) patients who consented to participate, 488 (77%) completed all STAI: Y-6 items. Half of the participants (n = 240; 49%) experienced raised anxiety, and of these, 48% (n = 114) reported feeling most anxious or worried about the possible results. Female gender, imaging modality, medical condition, first time having the procedure, and lower patient-perceived health status were statistically significantly associated with raised anxiety levels. CONCLUSION: Raised anxiety is common before medical imaging procedures and is mostly attributed to the possible results. Providing increased psychological preparation, particularly to patients with circulatory conditions or neoplasms or those that do not know their medical condition, may help reduce preprocedural anxiety among these subgroups.

The Offer of Advanced Imaging Techniques Leads to Higher Acceptance Rates for Screening Colonoscopy - a Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy plays a fundamental role in early diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer and requires public and professional acceptance to ensure the ongoing success of screening programs. The aim of the study was to prospectively assess whether patient acceptance rates to undergo screening colonoscopy could be improved by the offer of advanced imaging techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 372 randomly selected patients were prospectively included. A standardized questionnaire was developed that inquired of the patients their knowledge regarding advanced imaging techniques. Second, several media campaigns and information events were organized reporting about advanced imaging techniques, followed by repeated evaluation. After one year the evaluation ended. RESULTS: At baseline, 64% of the patients declared that they had no knowledge about new endoscopic methods. After twelve months the overall grade of information increased significantly from 14% at baseline to 34%. The percentage of patients who decided to undergo colonoscopy because of the offer of new imaging methods also increased significantly from 12% at baseline to 42% after 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were highly interested in the offer of advanced imaging techniques. Knowledge about these techniques could relatively easy be provided using local media campaigns. The offer of advanced imaging techniques leads to higher acceptance rates for screening colonoscopies.

Relationship between anxiety level and radiological investigation. Comparison among different diagnostic imaging exams in a prospective single-center study.

OBJECTIVE: Every patient could feel anxious when he waits in a radiological department to undergo diagnostic exams. The aim of our study is to evaluate the impact of the radiological exams on patient anxiety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 343 patients (mean age 54.83 years) who underwent different types of diagnostic exams in the Department of Diagnostic Imaging at our Hospital from April 2013 to August 2014. We administered to patients the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory Test, which detected with high sensitivity both state anxiety and trait anxiety. A team of clinical psychologists and radiologists evaluated the scores obtained. RESULTS: 83 out of 343 patients were excluded because refused to file the questionnaire. 31 % of the patients were submitted to MR, 18 % to breast imaging, 10 % to X-ray, 22 % Computer Tomography and 19 % to ultrasound, as previously described. 41 % of patients were submitted to the examination because of an oncologic disease, while 59 % because of non-oncological disease. Therefore, it was found that high levels of anxiety were present in most (about 91 %) of the patients and the scores varied according to the imaging examination and to the examination's reason: anxiety level was higher in non-oncological patients (54 %) and in patients waiting to undergo to MRI exams (29 %). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the diagnostic exams are stressful events for the patient, also in non-oncological patients. So, it is important to adequate the radiological staff to receive the patient, to inform him and perform exams with emotive involvement with a targeted education. Also, further studies are needed to evaluate the anxiety level and the quality of the images, because the anxiety can result in a somatic disorder with hyperactivity of the autonomic nervous system which may affect the patient's physical examination, causing problems in the evaluation of radiological images making to non-cooperative patient. MRI imaging is the examination that more of all led to an anxious state of patients but the main stressor is not related to the type of diagnostic examination, but to the uncertainty of the diagnosis, therapy and prognosis.

Oncology Patient Perceptions of the Use of Ionizing Radiation in Diagnostic Imaging.

PURPOSE: To measure the knowledge of oncology patients regarding use and potential risks of ionizing radiation in diagnostic imaging. METHODS: A 30-question survey was developed and e-mailed to 48,736 randomly selected patients who had undergone a diagnostic imaging study at a comprehensive cancer center between November 1, 2013 and January 31, 2014. The survey was designed to measure patients' knowledge about use of ionizing radiation in diagnostic imaging and attitudes about radiation. Nonresponse bias was quantified by sending an abbreviated survey to patients who did not respond to the original survey. RESULTS: Of the 48,736 individuals who were sent the initial survey, 9,098 (18.7%) opened it, and 5,462 (11.2%) completed it. A total of 21.7% of respondents reported knowing the definition of ionizing radiation; 35.1% stated correctly that CT used ionizing radiation; and 29.4% stated incorrectly that MRI used ionizing radiation. Many respondents did not understand risks from exposure to diagnostic doses of ionizing radiation: Of 3,139 respondents who believed that an abdominopelvic CT scan carried risk, 1,283 (40.9%) believed sterility was a risk; 669 (21.3%) believed heritable mutations were a risk; 657 (20.9%) believed acute radiation sickness was a risk; and 135 (4.3%) believed cataracts were a risk. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients and caregivers do not possess basic knowledge regarding the use of ionizing radiation in oncologic diagnostic imaging. To ensure health literacy and high-quality patient decision making, efforts to educate patients and caregivers should be increased. Such education might begin with information about effects that are not risks of diagnostic imaging.

Patient and family impact of pediatric genitourinary diagnostic imaging tests.

PURPOSE: The impact of diagnostic genitourinary imaging on patients and families is poorly understood. We measured patient and family reaction to commonly performed genitourinary imaging studies using a standardized measurement tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed families undergoing genitourinary imaging (renal ultrasound, voiding cystourethrography, radionuclide cystogram, static renal scintigraphy and diuretic renal scintigraphy) using a Likert scaled 11-item survey to assess impact across 4 domains (pain, anxiety, time, satisfaction). Survey scores were analyzed using ANOVA and linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 263 families were surveyed (61 renal ultrasound, 52 voiding cystourethrogram, 55 radionuclide cystogram, 47 mercaptoacetyltriglycine dynamic renal scintigraphy, 48 dimercaptosuccinic acid static renal scintigraphy). Mean patient age was 2.1 years old. Of the patients 45% were male and 77% were white. Patient age, gender and prior genitourinary imaging experience varied by study type. Study type was significantly associated with total and weighted scores on the genitourinary imaging survey (both p <0.0001). Renal ultrasound was scored as better and mercaptoacetyltriglycine dynamic renal scintigraphy was worse than voiding cystourethrogram, radionuclide cystogram and dimercaptosuccinic acid static renal scintigraphy, which did not differ from each other. Other factors associated with worse total scores included patient age 1 to 3 years (p <0.001) and nonwhite race (p = 0.04). Gender, prior testing history, wait time and parent education were not associated with total scores. In the multivariate model renal ultrasound remained the best and mercaptoacetyltriglycine dynamic renal scintigraphy the worst (p <0.0001). In a direct comparison dimercaptosuccinic acid static renal scintigraphy and voiding cystourethrogram total scores did not differ (p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences among genitourinary imaging studies regarding the patient/family experience, but there was no overall difference between dimercaptosuccinic acid static renal scintigraphy and voiding cystourethrogram. These findings may be useful to aid decision making when considering genitourinary imaging for children.

Current perspectives in medical image perception.

Medical images constitute a core portion of the information a physician utilizes to render diagnostic and treatment decisions. At a fundamental level, this diagnostic process involves two basic processes: visually inspecting the image (visual perception) and rendering an interpretation (cognition). The likelihood of error in the interpretation of medical images is, unfortunately, not negligible. Errors do occur, and patients' lives are impacted, underscoring our need to understand how physicians interact with the information in an image during the interpretation process. With improved understanding, we can develop ways to further improve decision making and, thus, to improve patient care. The science of medical image perception is dedicated to understanding and improving the clinical interpretation process.

Visual feedback of individuals' medical imaging results for changing health behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Feedback of medical imaging results can reveal visual evidence of actual bodily harm attributable to a given behaviour. This may offer a particularly promising approach to motivating changes in health behaviour to decrease risk. Applicable behaviours include smoking cessation, skin self-examination, sun protection behaviour, dietary intake, physical activity and medication usage. The current review assembles and evaluates the evidence concerning the behavioural impact of showing and explaining images, in order to determine whether their communication is an effective intervention approach. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which feedback to individuals of images of their own bodies created during medical imaging procedures increases or decreases a range of health behaviours. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3 2009), MEDLINE (1950 to 14 September 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 14 September 2009), CINAHL (1982 to 9 October 2009), PsycINFO (1806 to 14 September 2009) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted authors of selected papers, and searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database on 1 October 2009 for grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving adult (18 years and over) non-pregnant individuals undergoing medical imaging procedures assessing risk of disease or of an existing condition, for which personal risk may be reduced by modification of behaviour. The sole or principal component of included interventions is visual feedback of individuals' medical imaging results, defined as individuals being shown, and having explained, source images (still or moving images) of their bodies generated by the procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors searched for studies and independently extracted data from included studies, with disagreements resolved by consensus and a third author acting as arbiter. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed and reported in accordance with the guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the included studies, dividing them into clinical and non-clinical population groups and presenting major characteristics and results. Where the studies were sufficiently similar in terms of population, inclusion criteria, interventions and/or outcomes, we pooled the data statistically. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials involving 1371 participants. Overall, results were mixed. Regarding five trials in clinical populations, three assessed smoking cessation behaviours, all featuring arterial scanning procedures to assess cardiovascular risk, and reported a statistically significant effect favouring the intervention, producing a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 2.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 6.41, P = 0.01). One of these trials also measured physical activity and reported no statistically significant difference between the groups. A further trial measured skin examination behaviour following a skin photography procedure for assessing moles, and reported a statistically significant increase in favour of the intervention, with an OR of 4.86 (95% CI 1.95 to 12.10, P = 0.0007). The final clinical population trial measured a range of dietary intake and medication usage behaviours and featured an arterial scanning procedure assessing cardiovascular risk, and reported no statistically significant effects.Among the four trials in non-clinical populations, all featuring ultraviolet (UV) photography to highlight UV-related skin damage, a statistically significant result favouring the intervention was found in one trial for reducing tanning booth use, producing a mean difference (MD) of -1.10 (95% CI -1.90 to -0.30, P = .007) and one trial reported an outcome on which the control condition was favoured, with an MD of 0.45 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.86, P = 0.03) on intentional hours spent in the sun. In two further trials, no statistically significant behavioral effects were reported regarding time spent in the sun or sun protection behaviours.There was no evidence of significant adverse effects in the included trials, although this was not well reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited nature of the available evidence and the mixed results that were found, no strong statements can be made about the effectiveness of communicating medical imaging results to change health behaviour. Only three trials in clinical populations were similar enough in term of setting, intervention and outcome to allow meta-analysis. We suggest, however, that targeted interventions using medical imaging technologies may be effective in certain contexts, or as applied to certain behaviours, but that this should be considered on an intervention by intervention basis, and not assumed as a general principle.

Patient experiences and preferences: development of practice guidelines in a cancer imaging department.

OBJECTIVE: To improve patient management based on analysis of the results of a survey conducted during their visit to the imaging department of a cancer centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire comprising 30 single-response questions on a dichotomous scale or a 3- or 4-modality scale was developed by three radiologists specialized in oncology, the head of our quality assurance department, a psycho-oncologist, a psycho-sociologist, a biostatistician and a member of our institute's Patient Committee. Questions concerned reception, information provided about the examinations, examination experiences, the relational qualities and availability of health care professionals, the interview with the radiologist and announcement of the examination results. RESULTS: The questionnaire was given to 190 patients in the waiting room before a standard radiography or ultrasound examination (33%), mammography and breast ultrasound (33%), computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (34%). The return rate was 81%. This article analyses the responses to the various questions in terms of either percentages or detailed replies and suggestions. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the patients' experience and their suggestions provided objective elements concerning their real wishes in relation to each step of their management and identified changes and improvements to be made to the organization and daily functioning of the department.

The case of the vanishing patient? Image and experience.

It has been argued that the new technologies of medicine privilege the image over the actual body and its experience, so that the patients themselves may 'vanish' behind the images. A case study is used to explore this from the patient's point of view. What evidence is there that alienation or other dysfunctional effects can actually happen? In this example of the high-tech medicine of lung cancer treatment, it was demonstrable that the process of diagnosis was not only dependent on, but also in some ways distorted by, the reliance on technologies. It was not necessarily true, however, that the machines and the images themselves proved alienating to the patient, or produced a feeling of disembodiment. It was the system in which they were used, their translation into records and decisions, which was deeply alienating, with only lip-service paid to the principles of patient-centredness or the inclusion of the patient as a partner in decision making. Features of the contemporary British health service which seem to foster this are discussed.