IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i3p255-264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Radiologist Uncertainty and the Interpretation of Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia A. Carney

    (Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover and Lebanon, New Hampshire)

  • Joann G. Elmore

    (Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle)

  • Linn A. Abraham

    (Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington)

  • Martha S. Gerrity

    (Department of Internal Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland)

  • R. Edward Hendrick

    (Lynn Sage Comprehensive Breast Center, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois)

  • Stephen H. Taplin

    (Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle)

  • William E. Barlow

    (Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, and Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle)

  • Gary R. Cutter

    (Center for Research Design and Statistical Methods, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Reno)

  • Steven P. Poplack

    (Department of Radiology, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover and Lebanon, New Hampshire)

  • Carl J. D’Orsi

    (Breast Imaging Center, Emory Health Care Services, Atlanta, Georgia)

Abstract

Objective . To determine radiologists’ reactions to uncertainty when interpreting mammography and the extent to which radiologist uncertainty explains variability in interpretive performance. Methods . The authors used a mailed survey to assess demographic and clinical characteristics of radiologists and reactions to uncertainty associated with practice. Responses were linked to radiologists’ actual interpretive performance data obtained from 3 regionally located mammography registries. Results . More than 180 radiologists were eligible to participate, and 139 consented for a response rate of 76.8%. Radiologist gender, more years interpreting, and higher volume were associated with lower uncertainty scores. Positive predictive value, recall rates, and specificity were more affected by reactions to uncertainty than sensitivity or negative predictive value; however, none of these relationships was statistically significant. Conclusion . Certain practice factors, such as gender and years of interpretive experience, affect uncertainty scores. Radiologists’ reactions to uncertainty do not appear to affect interpretive performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia A. Carney & Joann G. Elmore & Linn A. Abraham & Martha S. Gerrity & R. Edward Hendrick & Stephen H. Taplin & William E. Barlow & Gary R. Cutter & Steven P. Poplack & Carl J. D’Orsi, 2004. "Radiologist Uncertainty and the Interpretation of Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 255-264, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:3:p:255-264
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04265480
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04265480
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04265480?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeroan J. Allison & Catarina I. Kiefe & E. Francis Cook & Martha S. Gerrity & E. John Orav & Robert Centor, 1998. "The Association of Physician Attitudes about Uncertainty and Risk Taking with Resource Use in a Medicare HMO," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(3), pages 320-329, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonius Schneider & Magdalena Wübken & Klaus Linde & Markus Bühner, 2014. "Communicating and Dealing with Uncertainty in General Practice: The Association with Neuroticism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-7, July.
    2. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    3. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    4. Costa, Nathalia & Mescouto, Karime & Dillon, Miriam & Olson, Rebecca & Butler, Prudence & Forbes, Roma & Setchell, Jenny, 2022. "The ubiquity of uncertainty in low back pain care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    5. Haijing Hao & Rema Padman & Baohong Sun & Rahul Telang, 2018. "Quantifying the Impact of Social Influence on the Information Technology Implementation Process by Physicians: A Hierarchical Bayesian Learning Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 25-41, March.
    6. Victor R. Fuchs & Mark B. McClellan & Jonathan S. Skinner, 2004. "Area Differences in Utilization of Medical Care and Mortality among US Elderly," NBER Chapters, in: Perspectives on the Economics of Aging, pages 367-414, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Zhu, Xuemin & van der Pol, Marjon & Scott, Anthony & Allan, Julia, 2023. "The stability of physicians’ risk attitudes across time and domains," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 339(C).
    8. Castro, M.F.; & Guccio, C.; & Romeo, D.;, 2022. "An assessment of physicians’ risk attitudes using laboratory and field data," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 22/26, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    9. Corallo, Ashley N. & Croxford, Ruth & Goodman, David C. & Bryan, Elisabeth L. & Srivastava, Divya & Stukel, Therese A., 2014. "A systematic review of medical practice variation in OECD countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 5-14.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:3:p:255-264. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.