Maintenance of Certification in Radiology: Eliciting Radiologist Preferences Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively assess radiologists' preferences for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) and Continuing Certification (CC) using a survey of attitudes and perceptions. METHODS: A questionnaire that assessed attitudes and perceptions and included a discrete choice or trade-off task was developed by ACR staff in conjunction with an independent market research agency and the Survey Subcommittee of the ACR Task Force on Certification in Radiology. The trade-off exercise was integrated into this methodology to better understand the underlying utilities or preferences of the components of MOC-CC among respondents and to better enable specific recommendations on how to optimize the current program. The survey was administered via e-mail to 17,305 ACR members. The demographic and practice characteristics of the 1,994 (11.5%) respondents were similar to the ACR radiologist membership and correspond to a normal distribution. At a 95% confidence level, with a margin of error 2.1%, we believe that the respondent population fairly reflects the actual population. RESULTS: Similar proportions judged the existing program as excellent or very good (36%), or fair or poor (35%), with 27% neutral. MOC-CC was perceived more often as excellent or very good by those who were grandfathered yet still participating in MOC, were in academic practice, were in an urban setting, were older, or had a role with the ABR. In contrast, MOC-CC was more often judged as fair or poor by those who were not grandfathered, were in private practice, were in a rural setting, or were younger. The current MOC-CC program is not well regarded by diplomates, with few showing preference or acceptability. The program's reception is most sensitive to the following attributes: absence or presence of a practice quality improvement requirement, Online Longitudinal Assessment content including or excluding general radiology in addition to one's specialty and inclusion or exclusion of self-assessment as part of the CME. CONCLUSION: ACR members diverged in their attitudes toward MOC, with differences among specific demographic and practice characteristics. The current package of features of MOC-CC was widely viewed as unsatisfactory, and a more optimal feature set arose from a simulation exercise.

Do Gender Disparities Among Major Radiological Society Award Recipients Exist?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate gender representation among recipients of physician awards presented by major radiological societies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed records of distinguished awards recipients given by four major radiological societies from 2000 to 2018. Included awards were those intended for attending physician recipients primarily involved in clinical and educational work which recognized accomplishments over the course of a career. Awards were assigned into one of two categories: awards focused on education or awards focused on leadership or overall contributions. Primary outcome measure was total numbers and proportions of award recipients by gender. RESULTS: During the entire study period, the proportion of female academic radiologists increased from 23.6% in 2000 to 29.6% in 2018 (25.4%). Of the 164 awards recognizing leadership or overall contributions, 35 were awarded to females (21.3%) and 129 to males (78.7%). Of the 29 awards recognizing excellence in teaching, 13 were awarded to females (44.8%) and 16 to males (55.2%). Men were significantly more likely than women to receive leadership awards over the entire study period (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Females are underrepresented among recipients of prestigious leadership awards. In contrast, females are overrepresented among recipients of major teaching awards suggesting a general perception among members of major radiological societies that females are superior teachers and inferior leaders. This finding underscores the importance of continued improvement in female representation in radiology in order to foster a high quality teaching environment as well as continued attention to the fact that females are underrepresented in leadership roles.

Addressing Needs of Women Radiologists: Opportunities for Practice Leaders to Facilitate Change.

Women are, and have always been, underrepresented in radiology. This gender disparity must be addressed. Women bring a different perspective to the workplace; and their collaborative, empathetic, and compassionate approach to patient care and education is an asset that the radiology community should embrace and leverage. Radiologic organizations should focus on removing barriers to the entry of women physicians into radiology as a specialty and to their career advancement. Organizations should address bias, promote physician well-being, and cultivate a safe and positive work environment. Radiology leaders committed to increasing gender diversity and fostering an inclusive workplace have the opportunity to strengthen their organizations. This article outlines the key steps that practice leaders can take to address the needs of women in radiology: (a) marketing radiology to talented women medical students, (b) addressing recruitment and bias, (c) understanding and accommodating the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the Fair Labor Standards Act for both trainees and radiologists in practice, (d) preventing burnout and promoting well-being, (e) offering flexible work opportunities, (f) providing mentorship and career advancement opportunities, and (g) ensuring equity. ©RSNA, 2018.

Effectiveness of a Mobile Mammography Program.

OBJECTIVE: Mobile mammography units have increasingly been used to address patient health care disparities; however, there are limited data comparing mobile units to stationary sites. This study aims to evaluate the characteristics of women who underwent mammography screening in a mobile unit versus those who underwent mammography screening at a cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed all screening mammography examinations performed in a mobile unit in 2014 (n = 1433 examinations). For comparison, we randomized and reviewed an equivalent number of screening mammography examinations performed at our cancer center in 2014 (n = 1434 examinations). BI-RADS assessment, adherence to follow-up, biopsies performed, cancer detection rate, and sociodemographic variables were recorded. An independent-samples t test was conducted to identify potential differences in age between cancer center patients and mobile unit patients. Chi-square analyses were used to test for associations between location and factors such as health insurance, race, marital status, geographic area, adherence to screening guidelines, recall rate, adherence to follow-up, and cancer detection rates. RESULTS: Patients visiting our cancer center (mean = 57.74 years; SD = 10.55) were significantly older than those visiting the mobile unit (mean = 52.58 years; SD = 8.19; p < 0.001). There was a significant association between location and health insurance status (χ2 = 610.92; p < 0.001) with more uninsured patients undergoing screening in the mobile van (cancer center = 3.70%, mobile unit = 38.73%). There was a significant association between screening location and patient race (χ2 = 118.75, p < 0.001), with more white patients being screened at the cancer center (cancer center = 47.28%, mobile unit = 33.30%), more black patients being screened in the mobile van (cancer center = 49.30%, mobile unit = 54.15%), and more Hispanic patients being screened in the mobile van (cancer center = 1.05%, mobile unit = 6.77%). There was a significant association between location and patient marital status (χ2 = 135.61, p < 0.001), with more married patients screened at the cancer center (cancer center = 49.16%, mobile unit = 38.31%), more single patients screened in the mobile van (cancer center = 25.17%, mobile unit = 34.47%), and more widowed patients being screened at the cancer center (cancer center = 8.09%, mobile unit = 4.47%). There was a significant association between location and geographic area (χ2 = 33.33, p < 0.001), with both locations reaching more urban than rural patients (cancer center = 79.99%, mobile unit = 70.62%). There was a significant association between location and adherence to screening guidelines (χ2 = 179.60, p < 0.001), with patients screened at the cancer center being more compliant (cancer center = 56.90%, mobile unit = 34.47%). Finally, there was a significant association between location and recall rate (χ2 = 4.06, p < 0.001). The cancer center had a lower recall rate (13.32%) than the mobile van (15.98%). Of those patients with BI-RADS 0, there was a significant association between location and adherence to follow-up (χ2 = 22.75, p < 0.001) with patients using the mobile unit less likely to return for additional imaging (cancer center = 2.65%, mobile unit = 17.03%). CONCLUSION: Significant differences were found among patients visiting the cancer center versus the mobile mammography van. The cancer center's population is older and more adherent to guidelines, whereas the mobile mammography population exhibited greater racial and marital diversity, higher recall rate, and lack of adherence to follow-up recommendations. By identifying these characteristics, we can develop programs and materials that meet these populations' needs and behaviors, ultimately increasing mammography screening and follow-up rates among underserved populations.

Effects of Changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (Fourth Versus Fifth Edition) on Breast Density Assessment: Intra- and Interreader Agreements and Density Distribution.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and to compare with those for density assessment using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five radiologists assessed breast density four times in 104 mammographic examinations: twice using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and twice using the fifth edition. The intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment based on each guideline were determined and compared. The density distribution pattern under each of the four BI-RADS density categories using each guideline was also noted and compared. RESULTS: The intrareader agreement for density assessment using the fifth-edition criteria was lower than that using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.0179). The overall intrareader agreement (weighted kappa) using the old criteria was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97). The overall intrareader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00). The interreader agreement values obtained using the fifth-edition criteria were also lower than those obtained using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.006). The overall interreader agreement using the old BI-RADS criteria was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69), whereas the overall interreader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61). Overall a higher number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Compared with the intra- and interreader agreements obtained using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines, the intra- and interreader agreements were lower using the fifth-edition guidelines. An increased number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used.

Assessing the Relationship of Mammographic Breast Density and Proliferative Breast Disease.

Increased breast density and a history of benign breast biopsy are both considered risk factors for developing breast cancer. Understanding the specifics of these risk factors and their relationship to each other can lead to a better understanding of a patient's propensity for breast cancer development and improved surveillance strategies. We included 245 women who underwent a benign breast biopsy without atypia between October 2011 and June 2013. Biopsies were performed for suspicious calcifications as well as masses and architectural distortion. Lesions biopsied were divided into two groups: calcified and noncalcified lesions. The patient's breast density was assessed on most recent mammogram and was classified using the American College of Radiology BI-RADS density categories. Based on histologic diagnosis, each case was classified as proliferative or nonproliferative breast disease. The median age of the cohort (n = 245) was 55 years (range, 40-84 years). There were 162 (66%) postmenopausal women in the study. A core biopsy was performed for calcifications in 33.5% cases and for noncalcified lesions in 58% cases. In patients with dense breast tissue, an underlying proliferative histology was found significantly more frequently with calcifications (66.7%) as opposed to noncalcified lesions (35.9%) (RR = 2.3 (1.3-4.0); χ(2) = 8.7; p = 0.003). In nondense breast patients, there was no significant difference (RR = 1.1 (0.7-1.8); χ(2) = 0.1; p = 0.738). In the postmenopausal group, women with dense breasts had proliferative histology significantly more frequently than women with nondense breasts (55.3% versus 38.3%; p < 0.05), regardless of the underlying lesion type. Postmenopausal women with dense breasts who underwent a breast biopsy with benign histology had a significantly higher likelihood of having proliferative breast disease, regardless of underlying lesion type. Women with dense breasts also showed proliferative histology significantly more often for calcifications as opposed to noncalcified lesions.

A web based Foundations of Radiological Physics for diagnostic radiology residents.

UNLABELLED: RATIONALE AND OBJECTS: We describe a new web-based physics course for radiology residents preparing for the Exam of the Future (EOF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A course was developed with a total of 12 web-based modules. Six modules were focused on "imaging" and six on "radiation." A module was subdivided into nine short "nuggets." Traditional lectures were replaced by modules using prerecorded lectures (Tegrity) to a secure website (WebCT). Each module was accompanied by three quizzes, each consisting of ten questions designed to reinforce covered materials. All online modules were accompanied by a noon conference that employed an Audience Response System (Turning Point). Seventeen first-year residents over 2 consecutive years beginning in July 2010 took this new course, and participated in an anonymous online follow-up survey (Survey Monkey). RESULTS: The recorded 12 modules had an overall average duration of 72 ± 19 minutes. Ten of 17 residents expressed a preference of 15 minutes for nugget duration. Highest personal assessment scores of each resident's understanding were obtained in human radiation risks and radiation protection. Residents considered supplemental noon conferences to be important for learning radiological physics. Satisfaction level was largely positive, with five residents highly satisfied, nine residents somewhat satisfied, two residents neutral, and only one resident somewhat dissatisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Our Foundations of Radiological Physics course was well received and served as the springboard for mastering x-ray-based imaging modalities of radiography, mammography, fluoroscopy, interventional radiology, and computed tomography.