Purpose

Unhealthy behaviors contribute to half of U.S. deaths. However, physicians lack sufficient skill in counseling patients to change behaviors. Characterizing effective published curricular interventions for behavior change counseling for medical trainees would inform educators toward improved training.

Method

The authors conducted a systematic literature search of studies published between 1965 and 2011 evaluating curricula on behavior change counseling for medical trainees. Included studies described behavior change counseling, teaching interventions for medical trainees, and assessment of interventions. The authors extracted eligible articles, rated outcomes for learners and patients using Kirkpatrick's hierarchy, and determined study quality.

Results

Of 2,788 identified citations, 109 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were performed in the United States (98), 93 at a single institution, and 81 in primary care settings. Curricular topics for counseling included smoking (67 studies), nutrition (30), alcohol/drug use (26), and exercise (22). Although most studies did not include theoretical frameworks, 39 used the Transtheoretical Model of Change. Sixty-two studies involved eight or fewer hours of curricular time, and 51 spanned four or fewer weeks. The studies with highest-level outcomes and quality employed multiple curricular techniques and included practice of counseling techniques in either simulated or actual clinical settings.

Conclusions

Existing literature suggests that trainees learn behavior change counseling through active, realistic practice and implementation of reminder and feedback systems within actual clinical practice settings. Multiinstitutional medical education research on methods of teaching behavior change counseling that influence patients' health outcomes are needed to ensure trainees' clinical competence and improve patient care.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic interpretations of melanocytic skin lesions vary widely among pathologists, yet the underlying reasons remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: Identify pathologist characteristics associated with rates of accuracy and reproducibility. METHODS: Pathologists independently interpreted the same set of biopsy specimens from melanocytic lesions on 2 occasions. Diagnoses were categorized into 1 of 5 classes according to the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis system. Reproducibility was determined by pathologists concordance of diagnoses across 2 occasions. Accuracy was defined by concordance with a consensus reference standard. Associations of pathologist characteristics with reproducibility and accuracy were assessed individually and in multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Rates of diagnostic reproducibility and accuracy were highest among pathologists with board certification and/or fellowship training in dermatopathology and in those with 5 or more years of experience. In addition, accuracy was high among pathologists with a higher proportion of melanocytic lesions in their caseload composition and higher volume of melanocytic lesions. LIMITATIONS: Data gathered in a test set situation by using a classification tool not currently in clinical use. CONCLUSION: Diagnoses are more accurate among pathologists with specialty training and those with more experience interpreting melanocytic lesions. These findings support the practice of referring difficult cases to more experienced pathologists to improve diagnostic accuracy, although the impact of these referrals on patient outcomes requires additional research.

Physician attributes, job satisfaction and confidence in clinical skills are associated with enhanced performance and better patient outcomes. We surveyed 252 pathologists to evaluate associations between enjoyment of breast pathology, demographic/clinical characteristics and diagnostic performance. Diagnostic performance was determined by comparing pathologist assessments of a set of 60 cases with consensus assessments of the same cases made by a panel of experienced pathologists. Eighty-three percent of study participants reported enjoying breast pathology. Pathologists who enjoy breast interpretation were more likely to review ≥10 cases/week (p = 0.003), report breast interpretation expertise (p = 0.013) and have high levels of confidence interpreting breast pathology (p < 0.001). These pathologists were less likely to report that the field was challenging (p < 0.001) and that breast cases make them more nervous than other types of pathology (p < 0.001). Enjoyment was not associated with diagnostic performance. Millions of women undergo breast biopsy annually, thus it is reassuring that although nearly a fifth of practicing pathologists who interpret breast tissue report not enjoying the field, precision is not impacted.

Purpose

This study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography.

Materials and methods

We evaluated the accuracy of 468 radiologists interpreting 2,234,947 screening and 196,164 diagnostic mammograms. Adjusting for site, radiologist, and patient characteristics, we identified radiologists with performance in the highest tertile and compared to those with lower performance.

Results

A moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (r_spearman=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (r_spearman=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.49; P<.0001).

Conclusion

Different educational approaches to screening and diagnostic imaging should be considered.

Purpose

To develop criteria to identify thresholds for the minimally acceptable performance of physicians interpreting diagnostic mammography studies.

Materials and methods

In an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, an Angoff approach was used to set criteria for identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance for both workup after abnormal screening examinations and workup of a breast lump. Normative data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) was used to help the expert radiologist identify the impact of cut points. Simulations, also using data from the BCSC, were used to estimate the expected clinical impact from the recommended performance thresholds.

Results

Final cut points for workup of abnormal screening examinations were as follows: sensitivity, less than 80%; specificity, less than 80% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 8% or greater than 25%; positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), less than 15% or greater than 40%; PPV of biopsy performed (PPV3), less than 20% or greater than 45%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 20 per 1000 interpretations. Final cut points for workup of a breast lump were as follows: sensitivity, less than 85%; specificity, less than 83% or greater than 95%; abnormal interpretation rate, less than 10% or greater than 25%; PPV2, less than 25% or greater than 50%; PPV3, less than 30% or greater than 55%; and cancer diagnosis rate, less than 40 per 1000 interpretations. If underperforming physicians moved into the acceptable range after remedial training, the expected result would be (a) diagnosis of an additional 86 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup after screening examinations, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 1067 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup, and (b) diagnosis of an additional 335 cancers per 100,000 women undergoing workup of a breast lump, with a reduction in the number of false-positive examinations by 634 per 100,000 women undergoing this workup.

Conclusion

Interpreting physicians who fall outside one or more of the identified cut points should be reviewed in the context of an overall assessment of all their performance measures and their specific practice setting to determine if remedial training is indicated.

Digital whole slide images are Food and Drug Administration approved for clinical diagnostic use in pathology; however, integration is nascent. Trainees from 9 pathology training programs completed an online survey to ascertain attitudes toward and experiences with whole slide images for pathological interpretations. Respondents (n = 76) reported attending 63 unique medical schools (45 United States, 18 international). While 63% reported medical school exposure to whole slide images, most reported ≤ 5 hours. Those who began training more recently were more likely to report at least some exposure to digital whole slide image training in medical school compared to those who began training earlier: 75% of respondents beginning training in 2017 or 2018 reported exposure to whole slide images compared to 54% for trainees beginning earlier. Trainees exposed to whole slide images in medical school were more likely to agree they were comfortable using whole slide images for interpretation compared to those not exposed (29% vs 12%; P = .06). Most trainees agreed that accurate diagnoses can be made using whole slide images for primary diagnosis (92%; 95% CI: 86-98) and that whole slide images are useful for obtaining second opinions (93%; 95% CI: 88-99). Trainees reporting whole slide image experience during training, compared to those with no experience, were more likely to agree they would use whole slide images in 5 years for primary diagnosis (64% vs 50%; P = .3) and second opinions (86% vs 76%; P = .4). In conclusion, although exposure to whole slide images in medical school has increased, overall exposure is limited. Positive attitudes toward future whole slide image diagnostic use were associated with exposure to this technology during medical training. Curricular integration may promote adoption.

Background

The news media facilitated the rapid dissemination of the findings from the estrogen plus progestin therapy arm of the Women's Health Initiative (EPT-WHI).

Objective

To examine the relationship between the potential exposure to newspaper coverage and subsequent hormone therapy (HT) use. DESIGN/POPULATION: Population-based cohort of women receiving mammography at 7 sites (327,144 postmenopausal women).

Measurements

The outcome was the monthly prevalence of self-reported HT use. Circulation data for local, regional, and national newspapers was used to create zip-code level measures of the estimated average household exposure to newspaper coverage that reported the harmful effects of HT in July 2002.

Results

Women had an average potential household exposure of 1.4 articles. There was substantial variation in the level of average household exposure to newspaper coverage; women from rural sites received less than women from urban sites. Use of HT declined for all average potential exposure groups after the publication of the EPT-WHI. HT prevalence among women who lived in areas where there was an average household exposure of at least 3 articles declined significantly more (45 to 27%) compared to women who lived in areas with <1 article (43 to 31%) during each of the subsequent 5 months (relative risks 0.86-0.92; p < .006 for all).

Conclusions

Greater average household exposure to newspaper coverage about the harms associated with HT was associated with a large population-based decline in HT use. Further studies should examine whether media coverage directly influences the health behavior of individual women.

Rationale and objectives

Evidence is inconsistent about whether radiologists' interpretive performance on a screening mammography test set reflects their performance in clinical practice. This study aimed to estimate the correlation between test set and clinical performance and determine if the correlation is influenced by cancer prevalence or lesion difficulty in the test set.

Materials and methods

This institutional review board-approved study randomized 83 radiologists from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries to assess one of four test sets of 109 screening mammograms each; 48 radiologists completed a fifth test set of 110 mammograms 2 years later. Test sets differed in number of cancer cases and difficulty of lesion detection. Test set sensitivity and specificity were estimated using woman-level and breast-level recall with cancer status and expert opinion as gold standards. Clinical performance was estimated using women-level recall with cancer status as the gold standard. Spearman rank correlations between test set and clinical performance with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated.

Results

For test sets with fewer cancers (N = 15) that were more difficult to detect, correlations were weak to moderate for sensitivity (woman level = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.16, 0.69; breast level = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.61) and weak for specificity (0.24, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.45) relative to expert recall. Correlations for test sets with more cancers (N = 30) were close to 0 and not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Correlations between screening performance on a test set and performance in clinical practice are not strong. Test set performance more accurately reflects performance in clinical practice if cancer prevalence is low and lesions are challenging to detect.

Rationale and objectives

The aim of this study was to describe the impact of a tailored Web-based educational program designed to reduce excessive screening mammography recall.

Materials and methods

Radiologists enrolled in one of four mammography registries in the United States were invited to take part and were randomly assigned to receive the intervention or to serve as controls. The controls were offered the intervention at the end of the study, and data collection included an assessment of their clinical practice as well. The intervention provided each radiologist with individual audit data for his or her sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate compared to national benchmarks and peer comparisons for the same measures; profiled breast cancer risk in each radiologist's respective patient populations to illustrate how low breast cancer risk is in population-based settings; and evaluated the possible impact of medical malpractice concerns on recall rates. Participants' recall rates from actual practice were evaluated for three time periods: the 9 months before the intervention was delivered to the intervention group (baseline period), the 9 months between the intervention and control groups (T1), and the 9 months after completion of the intervention by the controls (T2). Logistic regression models examining the probability that a mammogram was recalled included indication of intervention versus control and time period (baseline, T1, and T2). Interactions between the groups and time period were also included to determine if the association between time period and the probability of a positive result differed across groups.

Results

Thirty-one radiologists who completed the continuing medical education intervention were included in the adjusted model comparing radiologists in the intervention group (n = 22) to radiologists who completed the intervention in the control group (n = 9). At T1, the intervention group had 12% higher odds of positive mammographic results compared to the controls, after controlling for baseline (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.27; P = .0569). At T2, a similar association was found, but it was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.25). No associations were found among radiologists in the control group when comparing those who completed the continuing medical education intervention (n = 9) to those who did not (n = 10). In addition, no associations were found between time period and recall rate among radiologists who set realistic goals.

Conclusions

This study resulted in a null effect, which may indicate that a single 1-hour intervention is not adequate to change excessive recall among radiologists who undertook the intervention being tested.

Objective

Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography.

Materials and methods

Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type.

Results

Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms.

Conclusion

These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.