Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Imaging Testing in US Primary Care.
Radiology
imaging
patient-centered outcomes
patient-reported experience
Journal
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR
ISSN: 1558-349X
Titre abrégé: J Am Coll Radiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101190326
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
03
07
2018
revised:
14
08
2018
accepted:
19
08
2018
pubmed:
30
11
2018
medline:
3
8
2019
entrez:
29
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Imaging tests are one of the most sophisticated types of diagnostic tools used in health care, yet there are concerns that imaging is overused. Currently, tests are typically evaluated and implemented based on their accuracy, and there is limited knowledge about the range of patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) that imaging tests may lead to. This study explores patients' experiences and subsequent outcomes of imaging tests most notable to patients. Adult patients from four primary care clinics who had an x-ray, CT, MRI, or ultrasound in the 12 months before recruitment participated in a single semistructured interview to recount their imaging experience. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. Four themes related to PCOs were identified from 45 interviews. Participants' mean age was 53 years (25-83 years), 30 had undergone a diagnostic imaging test, and 15 underwent imaging for screening or monitoring. Themes included knowledge gained from the imaging test, its contribution to their overall health care journey, physical experiences during the test procedure, and impacts of the testing process on emotions. Patients identified various imaging test outcomes that were important to them. Measurement and reporting these outcomes should be considered more often in diagnostic research. Tools for providers and patients to discuss and utilize these outcomes may help promote shared decision making around the use and impact of imaging tests.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Imaging tests are one of the most sophisticated types of diagnostic tools used in health care, yet there are concerns that imaging is overused. Currently, tests are typically evaluated and implemented based on their accuracy, and there is limited knowledge about the range of patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) that imaging tests may lead to. This study explores patients' experiences and subsequent outcomes of imaging tests most notable to patients.
METHODS
METHODS
Adult patients from four primary care clinics who had an x-ray, CT, MRI, or ultrasound in the 12 months before recruitment participated in a single semistructured interview to recount their imaging experience. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Four themes related to PCOs were identified from 45 interviews. Participants' mean age was 53 years (25-83 years), 30 had undergone a diagnostic imaging test, and 15 underwent imaging for screening or monitoring. Themes included knowledge gained from the imaging test, its contribution to their overall health care journey, physical experiences during the test procedure, and impacts of the testing process on emotions.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patients identified various imaging test outcomes that were important to them. Measurement and reporting these outcomes should be considered more often in diagnostic research. Tools for providers and patients to discuss and utilize these outcomes may help promote shared decision making around the use and impact of imaging tests.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30482736
pii: S1546-1440(18)31044-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.08.021
pmc: PMC7050575
mid: NIHMS1554562
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Pagination
156-163Subventions
Organisme : NCRR NIH HHS
ID : UL1 RR025014
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR000423
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002319
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Références
Radiology. 2015 May;275(2):545-52
pubmed: 25803490
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Jan;86(1):3-8
pubmed: 21382687
Acad Med. 2014 Jul;89(7):990-5
pubmed: 24979166
Med Decis Making. 2009 Sep-Oct;29(5):E30-8
pubmed: 19726782
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Feb;14(2):274-281
pubmed: 27927589
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 6;7(9):e016391
pubmed: 28882915
Arch Intern Med. 2011 Aug 8;171(15):1385-90
pubmed: 21606090
BMJ. 2008 May 10;336(7652):1049-51
pubmed: 18467413
BMJ. 2008 May 3;336(7651):995-8
pubmed: 18456631
BMJ. 2000 Jun 17;320(7250):1635-40
pubmed: 10856064
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e52552
pubmed: 23300706
J Am Coll Radiol. 2012 Oct;9(10):725-8
pubmed: 23025867
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Feb 1;174(2):281-5
pubmed: 24322781
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2015 Oct;15:1-15
pubmed: 26591905
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Dec;22(12):1427-34
pubmed: 26575785
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Apr 3;146(7):502-10
pubmed: 17404352
Cancer Imaging. 2005 Nov 23;5 Spec No A:S83-8
pubmed: 16361141
BMJ. 2012 Feb 21;344:e686
pubmed: 22354600
Med Decis Making. 1991 Apr-Jun;11(2):88-94
pubmed: 1907710
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Med Decis Making. 2009 Sep-Oct;29(5):E13-21
pubmed: 19605881
Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2015 May 20;7(1):
pubmed: 26245604
Med Care. 2015 Jan;53(1):2-8
pubmed: 25334055
BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 31;4(7):e004999
pubmed: 25082418
BMJ. 2008 May 17;336(7653):1106-10
pubmed: 18483053
JAMA. 2004 Jan 7;291(1):71-8
pubmed: 14709578
J Eval Clin Pract. 2017 Feb;23(1):128-138
pubmed: 27762080
JAMA. 2012 Jun 13;307(22):2400-9
pubmed: 22692172
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb 5;136(3):243-6
pubmed: 11827500
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2002 Sep;20(3):145-50
pubmed: 12389750