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.

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.

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.

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.

Prevalence of Modifiable Breast Cancer Risk Factors and Potential Opportunities for Primary Prevention Among Women Engaged in Screening Mammography: National Health Interview Survey Results.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of modifiable breast cancer risk factors among women engaged in screening mammography using nationally representative cross-sectional survey data and to inform potential opportunities for breast facilities to contribute to primary prevention. METHODS: 2018 National Health Interview Survey respondents who were women ages 40-74 years without history of breast cancer were included and then categorized based on whether they reported screening mammography within the prior two years. Proportions of these women reporting evidence-based modifiable breast cancer risk factors, including elevated body mass index (BMI), lack of physical activity, or moderate or heavy alcohol consumption were calculated and stratified by demographics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between these risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among 4989 women meeting inclusion criteria and reporting screening mammography, 79% reported at least one modifiable risk factor. Elevated BMI was the most reported risk factor (67%), followed by lack of physical activity (24%) and alcohol consumption (16%). The majority of each race/ethnicity category reported at least one modifiable risk factor, with the highest proportion reported by Black respondents (90%). Asian, college educated, and higher-income participants were less likely to have at least one modifiable risk factor. CONCLUSION: Modifiable breast cancer risk factors are prevalent among women engaged in screening mammography. This provides potential opportunities for breast imaging facilities to contribute to the primary prevention of breast cancer by providing resources for lifestyle modification at the time of screening mammography.

Impact of Health Care-Associated Cost Concerns on Mammography Utilization: Cross-Sectional Survey Results From the National Health Interview Survey.

PURPOSE: Health care-related cost concerns and financial toxicity are increasingly recognized barriers along the breast cancer care continuum. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between patient-reported cost concerns and screening mammography utilization. METHODS: Survey participants aged 40 to 74 years from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey without personal history of breast cancer were included (response rate: 64%). Respondents were queried if they had experienced specific access-related health care barriers. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between barriers to care and patient-reported screening mammography utilization. RESULTS: Of survey respondents, 7,511 women were included. Of this group, 68.9% reported receiving a screening mammogram within the last 2 years and 52.2% reported receiving a screening mammogram within the last year. Of all survey respondents, 48.4% reported worry paying medical bills. Patients who reported worry about paying medical bills (odds ratio [OR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.97; P = .01), challenges affording dental care (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.54-0.77; P < .01), and challenges affording eyeglasses (OR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54-0.84; P < .01) were less likely to report screening mammography use than their respective counterparts. Patients who skipped medication doses (OR 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.91; P < .01), took less medication, (OR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48-0.82; P < .01), and delayed filling prescriptions (OR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.56-0.90; P < .01) to save money were also less likely to report receiving mammography screening. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported cost-related barriers are associated with decreased utilization of routine mammography.

Effect of Sociodemographic Factors on Utilization of an Online Patient Portal to Self-Schedule Screening Mammography: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess for sociodemographic factors associated with the use of an online patient portal to self-schedule screening mammography (SM) compared with the traditional scheduling pathway (phone call and referral system). METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted at an urban quaternary care academic medical center with patient portal access to the electronic health record. All female patients undergoing SM at the institution from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, were included. The institutional data warehouse was queried to extract the following variables: patient scheduling pathway (online self-scheduled vs traditional), age, language, race/ethnicity, health insurance provider, and ZIP code. ZIP code was linked to census data to extract the following: computer with Internet access, median household income, and education level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent factors associated with using the online self-scheduling pathway for SM. RESULTS: A total of 46,083 patients met the inclusion criteria. Three hundred two (0.7%) used the online self-scheduling pathway. Patients using the online self-scheduling pathway had higher odds of being younger (odds ratio [OR] for age in years, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.96), being English speakers (OR, 21.3; 95% CI, 2.9-153.9), being White non-Hispanic (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5), and having commercial insurance (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1). Patients using the online self-scheduling pathway had higher odds of living in ZIP-code areas with higher access to computers with Internet connection (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07) and lower rates of education at or above the college level (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00). Patient median household income by ZIP code was not significantly associated with use of the online self-scheduling pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with limited English proficiency, those of racial/ethnic minorities, those who were older, and those without commercial insurance were less likely to use an online self-scheduling pathway for SM.

Disparities in Same-Day Diagnostic Imaging in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of an Immediate-Read Screening Mammography Program Implemented During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND. The need for second visits between screening mammography and diagnostic imaging contributes to disparities in the time to breast cancer diagnosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an immediate-read screening mammography program was implemented to reduce patient visits and decrease time to diagnostic imaging. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of an immediate-read screening program with focus on disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal findings are made at screening mammography. METHODS. In May 2020, an immediate-read screening program was implemented whereby a dedicated breast imaging radiologist interpreted all screening mammograms in real time; patients received results before discharge; and efforts were made to perform any recommended diagnostic imaging during the visit (performed by different radiologists). Screening mammographic examinations performed from June 1, 2019, through October 31, 2019 (preimplementation period), and from June 1, 2020, through October 31, 2020 (postimplementation period), were retrospectively identified. Patient characteristics were recorded from the electronic medical record. Multivariable logistic regression models incorporating patient age, race and ethnicity, language, and insurance type were estimated to identify factors associated with same-day diagnostic imaging. Screening metrics were compared between periods. RESULTS. A total of 8222 preimplementation and 7235 postimplementation screening examinations were included; 521 patients had abnormal screening findings before implementation, and 359 after implementation. Before implementation, 14.8% of patients underwent same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. This percentage increased to 60.7% after implementation. Before implementation, patients who identified their race as other than White had significantly lower odds than patients who identified their race as White of undergoing same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal screening results (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.86; p = .03). After implementation, the odds of same-day diagnostic imaging were not significantly different between patients of other races and White patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.50-1.71; p = .80). After implementation, there was no significant difference in race and ethnicity between patients who underwent and those who did not undergo same-day diagnostic imaging after receiving abnormal results of screening mammography (p > .05). The rate of abnormal interpretation was significantly lower after than it was before implementation (5.0% vs 6.3%; p < .001). Cancer detection rate and PPV1 (PPV based on positive findings at screening examination) were not significantly different before and after implementation (p > .05). CONCLUSION. Implementation of the immediate-read screening mammography program reduced prior racial and ethnic disparities in same-day diagnostic imaging after abnormal screening mammograms. CLINICAL IMPACT. An immediate-read screening program provides a new paradigm for improved screening mammography workflow that allows more rapid diagnostic workup with reduced disparities in care.

Are English-language online patient education materials related to breast cancer risk assessment understandable, readable, and actionable?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of online patient education materials (OPEM) related to breast cancer risk assessment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We queried seven English-language search terms related to breast cancer risk assessment: breast cancer high-risk, breast cancer risk factors, breast cancer family history, BRCA, breast cancer risk assessment, Tyrer-Cuzick, and Gail model. Websites were categorized as: academic/hospital-based, commercial, government, non-profit or academic based on the organization hosting the site. Grade-level readability of qualifying websites and categories was determined using readability metrics and generalized estimating equations based on written content only. Readability scores were compared to the recommended parameters set by the American Medical Association (AMA). Understandability and actionability of OPEM related to breast cancer high-risk were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and compared to criteria set at ≥70%. Descriptive statistics and inter-rater reliability analysis were utilized. RESULTS: 343 websites were identified, of which 162 met study inclusion criteria. The average grade readability score was 12.1 across all websites (range 10.8-13.4). No website met the AMA recommendation. Commercial websites demonstrated the highest overall average readability of 13.1. Of the 26 websites related to the search term breast cancer high-risk, the average understandability and actionability scores were 62% and 34% respectively, both below criteria. CONCLUSIONS: OPEM on breast cancer risk assessment available to the general public do not meet criteria for readability, understandability, or actionability. To ensure patient comprehension of medical information online, future information should be published in simpler, more appropriate terms.

Patient Sociodemographic Characteristics Associated With Saturday Breast Imaging Clinic Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient sociodemographic characteristics associated with breast imaging utilization on Saturdays to inform potential initiatives designed to improve access and reduce disparities in breast cancer care. METHODS: This was an IRB-approved retrospective cross-sectional study. All adult women (aged ≥18 years) who received a screening or diagnostic examination at our breast imaging facility from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 were included. Patient characteristics including age, race, primary language, partnership status, insurance status, and primary care physician status were collected using the electronic medical record. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate patient characteristics associated with utilization. RESULTS: Of 53 695 patients who underwent a screening examination and 10 363 patients who underwent a diagnostic examination over our study period, 9.6% (5135/53 695) and 2.0% (209/10 363) of patients obtained their respective examination on a Saturday. In our multiple variable logistic regression analyses, racial/ethnic minorities (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-1.6; P < 0.01) and women who speak English as a second language (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 1.0-1.3; P = 0.03) were more likely to obtain their screening mammogram on Saturday than their respective counterparts. CONCLUSION: Racial/ethnic minorities and women who speak English as a second language were more likely to obtain their screening mammogram on Saturdays than their respective counterparts. Initiatives to extend availability of breast imaging exams outside of standard business hours increases access for historically underserved groups, which can be used as a tool to reduce breast cancer-related disparities in care.