Patterns and Predictors of Referral for Screening Breast MRI: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Introduction: Women with ≥20% lifetime breast cancer risk can receive supplemental breast cancer screening with MRI. We examined factors associated with recommendation for screening breast MRI among primary care providers (PCPs), gynecologists (GYNs), and radiologists. Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study. Quantitative: Participants (N = 72) reported recommendations for mammogram and breast MRI via clinical vignettes describing hypothetical patients with moderate, high, and very high breast cancer risk. Logistic regressions assessed the relationships of clinician-level factors (gender, specialty, years practicing) and practice-level factors (practice type, imaging facilities available) with screening recommendations. Qualitative: We interviewed a subset of survey participants (n = 17, 17/72 = 24%) regarding their decision-making about breast cancer screening recommendations. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with directed content analysis. Results: Compared with PCPs, GYNs and radiologists were significantly more likely to recommend breast MRI for high-risk (ORs = 4.09 and 4.09, respectively) and very-high-risk patients (ORs = 8.56 and 18.33, respectively). Qualitative analysis identified two key phases along the clinical pathway for high-risk women. Phase 1 was "identifying high-risk women," which included three subthemes (systems for risk assessment, barriers to risk assessment, scope of practice issues). Phase 2 was "referral for screening," which included three subthemes (conflicting guidelines, scope of practice issues, legal implications). Frequency of themes differed between specialties, potentially explaining findings from the quantitative phase. Conclusions: There are significant differences between specialties in supplemental breast cancer screening recommendations. Multilevel interventions are needed to support identification and management of women with high breast cancer risk, particularly for PCPs.

The Display of Medical Information: Content, Format, and Subjective Experience.

OBJECTIVES: To address a gap in the literature by investigating the subjective experience of participants to the form and content of medical information displayed in a healthcare setting. BACKGROUND: Artwork can enhance the experience of patients, but much less is known about how individuals react to displays of medical information in the form of posters or pamphlets, especially those about unsettling conditions (e.g., skin cancer). METHODS: In a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects design, researchers investigated the content of medical information (skin cancer vs. skin care) that was on display in a simulated exam room, whether the form was a pamphlet or a poster, and reason for the visit (routine annual skin check or evaluating a mole) on measures of subjective experience, including anxiety. RESULTS: Viewing material about skin cancer produced greater anxiety and greater arousal than did viewing material about sunscreen, and given the choice of four images (pamphlet and poster for sunscreen, pamphlet and poster for skin cancer), the sunscreen poster was recommended to improve the patient's experience and lower stress. In terms of display format, posters are judged to provide more visual engagement than are pamphlets. CONCLUSIONS: Exam rooms should offer multiple opportunities for visual engagement without images that produce anxiety. More research is needed to understand the subjective experience of the patient's interaction with the content and format of medical information.

Magnitude Matters: Art Image Size and Waiting Time Impact Perceived Quality of Care.

OBJECTIVE: The study fills a gap in the literature by examining the size of the art displayed and waiting time in an exam office on patients' judgments of the quality of care they are likely to receive. BACKGROUND: A body of research shows that the content of art in healthcare settings has an impact on patients' well-being, yet no work has empirically systematically examined the size of the art displayed on perceived healthcare outcomes. METHOD: A fully crossed 4 ×2 between-subjects experimental design examined the impact of exposure to images in an outpatient exam room that varied in the size of what was displayed (a landscape scene: small, medium, large, and control-blank wall) crossed by the time waiting for the physician (10 vs. 45 min). The Dependent Variables were the reported anxiety and various measures of satisfaction with the healthcare visit. RESULTS: The size of the art had a significant effect on the majority of the dependent variables; specifically, the large image had a more positive impact than the other sizes; longer waits were also negatively evaluated by patients and affected anxiety and judgments of room spaciousness. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying the recommended content of art displayed is necessary but not sufficient; the size of the art in its context has the potential to impact a range of important perceptions related to healthcare. When the size does not match the available wall space (i.e., the canonical size was not utilized), a variety of ratings of the healthcare environment (including the practitioner) were negatively affected.