ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2015
Characterizing the Mammography Technologist Workforce in North Carolina.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Statewide Survey of Primary Care and Subspecialty Providers on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk-Stratification and Surveillance Practices.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMammography technologists' level of training, years of experience, and feedback on technique may play an important role in the breast-cancer screening process. However, information on the mammography technologist workforce is scant.
methodsIn 2013, we conducted a survey mailed to 912 mammography technologists working in 224 facilities certified by the Mammography Quality Standards Act in North Carolina. Using standard survey methodology, we developed and implemented a questionnaire on the education and training, work experiences, and workplace interactions of mammography technologists. We aggregated responses using survey weights to account for nonresponse. We describe and compare lead (administrative responsibilities) and nonlead (supervised by another technologist) mammography technologist characteristics, testing for differences, using t-tests and χ(2) analysis.
resultsA total of 433 mammography technologists responded (survey response rate = 47.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.2%-50.7%), including 128 lead and 305 nonlead technologists. Most mammography technologists were non-Hispanic, white women; their average age was 48 years. Approximately 93% of lead and nonlead technologists had mammography-specific training, but <4% had sonography certification, and 3% had MRI certification. Lead technologists reported more years of experience performing screening mammography (P = .02) and film mammography (P = .03), more administrative hours (P < .0001), and more workplace autonomy (P = .002) than nonlead technologists. Nonlead technologists were more likely to report performing diagnostic mammograms (P = .0004) or other breast imaging (P = .001), discuss image quality with a peer (P = .013), and have frequent face-to-face interaction with radiologists (P = .03).
conclusionsOur findings offer insights into mammography technologists' training and work experiences, highlighting variability in characteristics of lead versus nonlead technologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.