Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography

Patricia (Patty) Carney, Andy Bogart, Edward A. Sickles, Robert Smith, Diana S M Buist, Karla Kerlikowske, Tracy Onega, Diana L. Miglioretti, Robert Rosenberg, Bonnie C. Yankaskas, Berta M. Geller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

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 10years 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 theirclinical 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1389-1398
Number of pages10
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume20
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2013

Fingerprint

Mammography
Randomized Controlled Trials
Continuing Medical Education
Radiologists
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Research Ethics Committees
Random Allocation
Control Groups

Keywords

  • Interpretive accuracy
  • Physician education
  • Screening mammography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography. / Carney, Patricia (Patty); Bogart, Andy; Sickles, Edward A.; Smith, Robert; Buist, Diana S M; Kerlikowske, Karla; Onega, Tracy; Miglioretti, Diana L.; Rosenberg, Robert; Yankaskas, Bonnie C.; Geller, Berta M.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 20, No. 11, 11.2013, p. 1389-1398.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carney, PP, Bogart, A, Sickles, EA, Smith, R, Buist, DSM, Kerlikowske, K, Onega, T, Miglioretti, DL, Rosenberg, R, Yankaskas, BC & Geller, BM 2013, 'Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography', Academic Radiology, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1389-1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017
Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Bogart, Andy ; Sickles, Edward A. ; Smith, Robert ; Buist, Diana S M ; Kerlikowske, Karla ; Onega, Tracy ; Miglioretti, Diana L. ; Rosenberg, Robert ; Yankaskas, Bonnie C. ; Geller, Berta M. / Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography. In: Academic Radiology. 2013 ; Vol. 20, No. 11. pp. 1389-1398.
@article{4380cc853bd745a493da0a558a704163,
title = "Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography",
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 10years 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 theirclinical 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.",
keywords = "Interpretive accuracy, Physician education, Screening mammography",
author = "Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Andy Bogart and Sickles, {Edward A.} and Robert Smith and Buist, {Diana S M} and Karla Kerlikowske and Tracy Onega and Miglioretti, {Diana L.} and Robert Rosenberg and Yankaskas, {Bonnie C.} and Geller, {Berta M.}",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "1389--1398",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Bogart, Andy

AU - Sickles, Edward A.

AU - Smith, Robert

AU - Buist, Diana S M

AU - Kerlikowske, Karla

AU - Onega, Tracy

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L.

AU - Rosenberg, Robert

AU - Yankaskas, Bonnie C.

AU - Geller, Berta M.

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - 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 10years 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 theirclinical 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.

AB - 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 10years 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 theirclinical 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.

KW - Interpretive accuracy

KW - Physician education

KW - Screening mammography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885345719&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885345719&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017

DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017

M3 - Article

C2 - 24119351

AN - SCOPUS:84885345719

VL - 20

SP - 1389

EP - 1398

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 11

ER -