Integrating mammography screening programmes into specialist breast centres in Italy: insights from a national survey of Senonetwork breast centres.
Breast centre
Health services integration
Mammography screening
Survey
UTAUT
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 May 2022
31 May 2022
Historique:
received:
23
02
2022
accepted:
13
05
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
3
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite recommendations, mammography screening is often insufficiently integrated into specialist breast centres. A national, cross-sectional, voluntary, online survey on this issue was carried out among the Italian breast centres associated with Senonetwork, the Italian network of breast cancer services. A 73-item questionnaire was created, pre-tested and piloted. Centres integrating and not integrating a screening programme were compared using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. Centres' clustering was performed using the Gower's distance metric. Groups and clusters were compared with the equality-of-means test. The response rate was 82/128 (65%). Overall, 84% (69/82) breast centres reported a collaboration with a screening programme in performing and/or reading mammograms and in the diagnostic work-up of women with abnormal screening results. The same proportion was observed among those centres responding to all questions (62/74). Performance expectancies (or the perceived usefulness of integration in terms of clinical quality, patient convenience, ease of job, and professional growth), satisfaction and motivation were higher in those centres collaborating with the screening programme. Effort expectancy indicators (or the degree to which the respondents believe that the integration is easy to implement) and those concerning the existence of facilitating conditions were lower both in centres collaborating and not collaborating with the screening programme. Among the former, six clusters of centres, distributed from 'no integration' to 'high', were identified. In cluster analysis, the highest level of integration was associated with higher agreement that integration eases the job, offers better opportunities for professional growth, and makes the working environment more satisfactory. The least integrated cluster assigned the lowest score to the statement that local health authority made available the resources needed. While confirming the positive effects of integrating screening programmes into breast centres, this survey has brought to light specific difficulties that must be faced. The results provide insights into the importance of integration focusing on the perspectives of professional career and motivation. The deficiency of facilitating conditions to integration is modifiable. Screening professionals' societies may have a role as initiators of the integration. Other supporting actions may be included in health laws at the national and regional level.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite recommendations, mammography screening is often insufficiently integrated into specialist breast centres. A national, cross-sectional, voluntary, online survey on this issue was carried out among the Italian breast centres associated with Senonetwork, the Italian network of breast cancer services.
METHODS
METHODS
A 73-item questionnaire was created, pre-tested and piloted. Centres integrating and not integrating a screening programme were compared using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. Centres' clustering was performed using the Gower's distance metric. Groups and clusters were compared with the equality-of-means test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The response rate was 82/128 (65%). Overall, 84% (69/82) breast centres reported a collaboration with a screening programme in performing and/or reading mammograms and in the diagnostic work-up of women with abnormal screening results. The same proportion was observed among those centres responding to all questions (62/74). Performance expectancies (or the perceived usefulness of integration in terms of clinical quality, patient convenience, ease of job, and professional growth), satisfaction and motivation were higher in those centres collaborating with the screening programme. Effort expectancy indicators (or the degree to which the respondents believe that the integration is easy to implement) and those concerning the existence of facilitating conditions were lower both in centres collaborating and not collaborating with the screening programme. Among the former, six clusters of centres, distributed from 'no integration' to 'high', were identified. In cluster analysis, the highest level of integration was associated with higher agreement that integration eases the job, offers better opportunities for professional growth, and makes the working environment more satisfactory. The least integrated cluster assigned the lowest score to the statement that local health authority made available the resources needed.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While confirming the positive effects of integrating screening programmes into breast centres, this survey has brought to light specific difficulties that must be faced. The results provide insights into the importance of integration focusing on the perspectives of professional career and motivation. The deficiency of facilitating conditions to integration is modifiable. Screening professionals' societies may have a role as initiators of the integration. Other supporting actions may be included in health laws at the national and regional level.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35641985
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08111-1
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08111-1
pmc: PMC9153866
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
723Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Prev Med. 2021 Oct;151:106642
pubmed: 34217420
Eur J Cancer. 2000 Dec;36(18):2288-93
pubmed: 11094301
Int J Med Inform. 2016 Jun;90:22-31
pubmed: 27103194
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jul 3;21(1):639
pubmed: 34215228
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Nov 27;13:129
pubmed: 24279650
Radiol Med. 2022 May;127(5):484-489
pubmed: 35347582
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Feb;72:244-250
pubmed: 28064097
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Dec;87:199-200
pubmed: 28662905
CMAJ. 2008 Jul 29;179(3):245-52
pubmed: 18663204
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Oct 04;11:249
pubmed: 21970334
J Appl Psychol. 2003 Oct;88(5):879-903
pubmed: 14516251
Eur J Cancer. 2013 Nov;49(17):3579-87
pubmed: 23968730
Breast. 2020 Jun;51:65-84
pubmed: 32217457
BMJ. 1996 Jan 20;312(7024):145-8
pubmed: 8563532
Int J Integr Care. 2001;1:e21
pubmed: 16896400
Int J Integr Care. 2009 Jun 17;9:e82
pubmed: 19590762
J Appl Psychol. 2001 Feb;86(1):114-21
pubmed: 11302223
Radiol Med. 2017 Sep;122(9):639-650
pubmed: 28429207