ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2025
Using Self-Scheduling to Improve Screening Mammography Completion Rates.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2025. 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.
- Reply.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment onReply.2025
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSelf-scheduling has the potential to enhance convenience and patient engagement. We compared outpatient screening mammography completion rates before and after implementing an online self-scheduling system between patients who use self-scheduling versus traditional scheduling.
methodsIn February 2021, a self-scheduling process was implemented at an institutional level through the Epic MyChart online portal, allowing patients to self-schedule screening mammography. This retrospective cohort study included women aged 18 and over who scheduled outpatient screening mammography in a tertiary health care facility from October 1, 2017, to June 30, 2023, had at least one encounter during the pre-implementation phase and one encounter during the postimplementation period, and only used one scheduling method (self-scheduling or traditional scheduling) in the postimplementation period. Difference-in-difference analyses were conducted to compare screening mammography completion rates between patients who used traditional versus self-scheduling in the postimplementation period.
resultsIn all, 29,893 screening mammography were scheduled by 7,203 patients (mean age: 58.1 years; 70.0% White, 18.2% Asian, 1.8% Black, and 19.5% Hispanic). The overall mammography completion rate in pre-implementation period was 78.9% and increased to 79.8% in the postimplementation period. Using difference-in-difference estimator, the completion rates in the self-scheduling cohort was 8.4 percentage point (95% confidence interval, 5.2-11.6) higher than traditional scheduling. The change in screening mammography completion rate from the postimplementation to pre-implementation period was +8.5 percentage point (88.1% postimplementation versus 79.6% pre-implementation) for the self-scheduling cohort and +0.1 percentage point (80.8% postimplementation versus 80.7% pre-implementation) for the traditional scheduling cohort.
conclusionSelf-scheduling was linked to increased screening mammography completion rates postimplementation when compared to traditional scheduling.
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.