Keywords:
Management, Computer applications, Professional issues, MR, Ethics, Decision analysis, Diagnostic procedure, Epidemiology
Authors:
P. Hegedüs1, O. von Stackelberg1, C. Neumann1, S. Selder2, N. Werner3, R. C. Bertheau1, H. U. Kauczor1, C. L. Schlett1, S. Weckbach1; 1Heidelberg/DE, 2Munich/DE, 3Greifswald/DE
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2019/C-3688
Methods and materials
Participants:
The FU questionnaire pilot phase was monocentric and was conducted among volunteers who received a wbMRI between 01/2016-02/2016 in the study centre of Neubrandenburg.
With a ratio of 1:1 with and without disclosed IF 86 participants were manually selected in the Imaging Core for Incidental Findings,
Heidelberg.
The questionnaires were sent out 6-7 months after the wbMRI examination,
leaving sufficient time for work-up of the disclosed IFs and final diagnosis.
In case a questionnaire was not returned after four weeks,
the questionnaire was sent a second time followed by a reminder phone call.
The exact same questionnaire was sent approximately 8 weeks after the return of the first questionnaire in order to evaluate the test-retest reliability.
FU Questionnaire:
The FU questionnaire was developed on the bases of the surveys applied in the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP) and Kooperative Gesundheitsforschung in der Region Augsburg (KORA) [7-8].
The FU questionnaire consists of 26 questions of which the first 13 questions address both participants,
with and without IF notification.
The next 13 questions are specifically addressed to participants who received an IF notification.
The full questionnaire of 8 pages (TeleForm,
Electric Paper Informationssysteme GmbH,
Germany) includes closed-ended dichotomous,
multiple choice and rating scale questions,
matrix questions and in some cases open-ended question types.
In the first part of the questionnaire,
participants are questioned for their motivation for participating in the MRI examination,
how they perceived the duration of the MRI examination itself,
if they experienced stress in the time waiting for possible notification of an IF and whether they would agree to participate in a FU MRI examination.
Participants who received an IF notification were asked if the disclosed finding was previously known,
if the language of disclosure was clear enough to understand,
and to which degree they were distressed by the notification.
Detailed questions were asked about how the disclosed findings were followed-up on in terms of if and which specialist was consulted,
what kind of work-up was done,
about any complications during work-up,
time spent until diagnosis and what the exact diagnosis was.
Statistical analyses:
Descriptive statistics was provided using means±SD for continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables.
Comparisons between groups were performed with the use of an independent sample t-test for age,
Fisher’s exact test for all categorical variables.
To assess the feasibility of the questionnaire,
aspects concerning time for completion and compliance were evaluated.
The compliance was reflected in the participation and total number of missing values per participant for the first 13 non-filter questions.
In an attempt to assess reliability,
a test-retest analysis was performed by administering the identical questionnaire to the same participants for a second time 8 weeks later.
Following a frequency analysis interrater reliability index (Cohen’s kappa) was calculated for every question with respect to the degree of disagreement when necessary.