PATIENTS OPINION OF MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING SERVICES - IMMEDIATE RESULTS VERSUS DELAYED RESULTS DUE TO INTERPRETATION BY 2 OBSERVERS

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate by random questio nnaire mailings the preferences of women who have undergone mammograph y in our region regarding communication of mammography screenign resul ts. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Questionnaires were mailed to 400 randomly selected women who were more than 35 years old and who had been treate d at our institution for medical or surgical reasons. Questions regard ing use of mammography screening at our institution versus services at other locations were included. The questionnaire described two possib le mammography services; either a double reading service that would pr ovide delayed reports (DRDR) with the benefit of extra cancers detecte d, and a service that provides immediate reports given directly to the patient by an on-site radiologist, The presentation of the services w as reversed in half the questionnaires to avoid bias. Patients' choice s were collected, as were demographic data. The choice of one system o ver the other was evaluated using the one-sample test for binomial pro bability, The chi-square test was used to determine if the order of qu estions on the survey or the site of patients' screening mammography a ffected responses. RESULTS. The response rate was 42% (n = 168). Of th ese, one response informed us of the death of a patient. Of the remain ing 167 respondents, 75% (n = 126) preferred the DRDR system, 13% (n = 22) preferred the system providing immediate results (p < .0001), and the other 19 respondents did not select a preference. Of the 167 resp ondents, 156 answered the question regarding previous screening mammog raphy experience. Of the 105 patients who had undergone screening mamm ography at our institution, 78% (n = 82) pre preferred the DRDR system . Of the 51 patients who had undergone mammography elsewhere or who ha d never undergone mammography, 75% (n = 38) preferred the DRDR system. We found that ordering of presentation of the systems in the question naire had no effect on responses. Likewise, whether a respondent had u ndergone mammography at our institution had no effect on responses (p = 1.0). CONCLUSION. A statistically significant number of women who re sponded to our questionnaire preferred the DRDR system of reporting sc reening mammographic results. Educational material about double readin g that we included with each patient's questionnaire could account for these results, If the use of a second interpreter is feasible and is done for batch interpretation of screening mammograms, then education of patients about this process may increase acceptance of a delayed ma mmographic report.