Dataset Information

What causes increasing and unnecessary use of radiological investigations? A survey of radiologists' perceptions.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Growth in use and overuse of diagnostic imaging significantly impacts the quality and costs of health care services. What are the modifiable factors for increasing and unnecessary use of radiological services? Various factors have been identified, but little is known about their relative impact. Radiologists hold key positions for providing such knowledge. Therefore the purpose of this study was to obtain radiologists' perspective on the causes of increasing and unnecessary use of radiological investigations. METHODS: In a mailed questionnaire radiologist members of the Norwegian Medical Association were asked to rate potential causes of increased investigation volume (fifteen items) and unnecessary investigations (six items), using five-point-scales. Responses were analysed by using summary statistics and Factor Analysis. Associations between variables were determined using Students' t-test, Spearman rank correlation and Chi-Square tests. RESULTS: The response rate was 70% (374/537). The highest rated causes of increasing use of radiological investigations were: a) new radiological technology, b) peoples' demands, c) clinicians' intolerance for uncertainty, d) expanded clinical indications, and e) availability. 'Over-investigation' and 'insufficient referral information' were reported the most frequent causes of unnecessary investigations. Correlations between causes of increasing and unnecessary radiology use were identified. CONCLUSION: In order to manage the growth in radiological imaging and curtail inappropriate investigations, the study findings point to measures that influence the supply and demand of services, specifically to support the decision-making process of physicians.

SUBMITTER: Lysdahl KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2749824 | biostudies-other | 2009

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What causes increasing and unnecessary use of radiological investigations? A survey of radiologists' perceptions.

Lysdahl Kristin B KB Hofmann Bjørn M BM

BMC health services research 20090901

<h4>Background</h4>Growth in use and overuse of diagnostic imaging significantly impacts the quality and costs of health care services. What are the modifiable factors for increasing and unnecessary use of radiological services? Various factors have been identified, but little is known about their relative impact. Radiologists hold key positions for providing such knowledge. Therefore the purpose of this study was to obtain radiologists' perspective on the causes of increasing and unnecessary us ...[more]

PMID: 19723302

Similar Datasets

Project description:Unnecessary exposure to medical interventions can harm patients. Many hope that generalist physicians can limit such unnecessary exposure.To assess older Americans' perceptions of the need for tests and referrals that their personal physician deemed unnecessary.Telephone survey with mail follow-up in English and Spanish, conducted from May to September 2005 (overall response rate 62%).Nationally representative sample of 2,847 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries. Main analyses focus on the 2,319 who had a personal doctor ("one you would see for a check-up or advice if you were sick") whom they described as a generalist ("doctor who treats many different kinds of problems").Proportion of respondents wanting a test or referral that their generalist suggested was not necessary using 2 clinical vignettes (cough persisting 1 week after other flu symptoms; mild but definite chest pain lasting 1 week).Eighty-two percent of Medicare beneficiaries had a generalist physician; almost all (97%) saw their generalist at least once in the past year. Among those with a generalist, 79% believed that it is "better for a patient to have one general doctor who manages most of their medical problems" than to have each problem cared for by a specialist. Nevertheless, when faced with new symptoms, many would want tests and referrals that their doctor did not think necessary. For a cough persisting 1 week after flu symptoms, 34% would want to see a lung specialist even if their generalist told them they "probably did not need to see a specialist but could if they wanted to." For 1 week of mild but definite chest pain when walking up stairs, 55% would want to see a heart specialist even if their generalist did not think it necessary. In these same scenarios, even higher proportions would want diagnostic testing; 57% would want a chest x-ray for the cough, and 74% would want "special tests" for the chest pain.When faced with new symptoms, many older patients report that they would want a diagnostic test or specialty referral that their generalist thought was unnecessary. Generalists striving to provide patient-centered care while at the same time limiting exposure to unnecessary medical interventions will need to address their patients' perceptions regarding the need for these services.

Project description:BackgroundGeographical variation in health care services challenges the basic principle of fair allocation of health care resources. This study aimed to investigate geographical variation in the use of X-ray, CT, MRI and Ultrasound examinations in Norway, the contribution from public and private institutions, and the impact of accessibility and socioeconomic factors on variation in examination rates.MethodsA nationwide survey of activity in all radiological institutions for the year 2002 was used to compare the rates per thousand of examinations in the counties. The data format was files/printouts where the examinations were recorded according to a code system.ResultsOverall rates per thousand of radiological examinations varied by a factor of 2.4. The use of MRI varied from 170 to 2, and CT from 216 to 56 examinations per 1000 inhabitants. Single MRI examinations (knee, cervical spine and head/brain) ranged high in variation, as did certain other spine examinations. For examination of specific organs, the counties' use of one modality was positively correlated with the use of other modalities. Private institutions accounted for 28% of all examinations, and tended towards performing a higher proportion of single examinations with high variability. Indicators of accessibility correlated positively to variation in examination rates, partly due to the figures from the county of Oslo. Correlations between examination rates and socioeconomic factors were also highly influenced by the figures from this county.ConclusionThe counties use of radiological services varied substantially, especially CT and MRI examinations. A likely cause of the variation is differences in accessibility. The coexistence of public and private institutions may be a source of variability, along with socioeconomic factors. The findings represent a challenge to the objective of equality in access to health care services, and indicate a potential for better allocation of overall health care resources.

Project description:BackgroundOver 84 % of all prescriptions in the US are filled as generic drugs, though in prior surveys, patients reported concerns about their quality.ObjectiveWe aimed to survey patients' perceptions and use of generic drugs.DesignOur survey (administered August 2014) assessed patients' skepticism about generic drug safety and effectiveness and how often they requested brand-name drugs. Chi-square tests and two-sample t-tests assessed associations between patient demographics and the outcomes.ParticipantsOur sample frame was the CVS Advisor Panel, a national database of 124,621 CVS customers. We randomly selected 1450 patients with self-reported chronic conditions who filled at least one prescription in the prior 3 months.Main measuresWe assessed how often patients reported asking their physicians to prescribe a brand-name over a generic drug in the last year, and "generic skepticism," defined as not believing generic drugs were as safe, effective, had the same side effects, and contained the same active ingredients as brand-name drugs.Key resultsOf the 1,442 patients with valid addresses, 933 responded (65 % response rate) and 753 took the full survey. A vast majority (83 %) agreed that physicians should prescribe generic drugs when available, and 54 % said they had not asked their physicians to prescribe a brand-name drug over a generic in the past year. Most respondents considered generic drugs to be as effective (87 %) and safe (88 %) as their brand-name counterparts, and to have the same side effects (80 %) and active ingredients (84 %). Non-Caucasians were more likely than Caucasians to request a brand-name drug over a generic (56 % vs. 43 %, p?<?0.01), and were also more skeptical of generic drugs' clinical equivalence (43 % vs. 29 %, p?<?0.01).ConclusionsWe found a substantial shift towards more patients having positive views of generic drugs, but lingering negative perceptions will have to be overcome to ensure continued cost-savings and improved patient outcomes from generic drugs.

Project description:BackgroundCore outcome sets (COS) are standardised sets of outcomes, which represent the minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials. COS can enhance comparability across health trials by reducing heterogeneity of outcome measurement and reporting and potentially minimising selective outcome reporting. Examining what researchers involved in trials know and think about COS is essential to increase awareness and promote COS uptake. The aim of this study is therefore to examine clinical trialists' knowledge, perceptions and experiences of COS.MethodsAn online survey design was used. Participants were clinical trialists, operationalised for the current study as researchers named as the contact person on a trial registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Trial repository between 1 January 2019 and 21 July 2020. Survey items assessed clinical trialists' familiarity with and understanding of COS, along with experiences of COS use and development.ResultsOf 1913 clinical trialists contacted to participate, 62 (3%) completed the survey. Forty (65%) participants were familiar with COS and, of those familiar with COS, 21 (55%) had been involved in a trial that used a COS. Of clinical trialists who used COS in a trial(s), less than half (n = 9, 41%) reported that all COS outcomes were used. The main barriers to using COS are poor knowledge about COS (n = 43, 69%) and difficulties identifying relevant COS (n = 42, 68%). Clinical trialists also reported perceptions of COS as restrictive and often containing too many outcomes. The main enablers to using COS are clear understanding (n = 51, 82%) and perceived importance of COS (n = 44, 71%).ConclusionsEnhancing clinical trialists' use of all COS outcomes is needed to reduce outcome heterogeneity and enhance comparability across trial findings. Enhancing awareness of COS importance among researchers and funders is needed to ensure that COS are developed and used by clinical trialists. Education and training may further promote awareness and understanding of COS.

Dataset Information

What causes increasing and unnecessary use of radiological investigations? A survey of radiologists' perceptions.

Publications

What causes increasing and unnecessary use of radiological investigations? A survey of radiologists' perceptions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure