| Title |
European radiographers’ challenges from mammography education and clinical practice – an integrative review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-016-0542-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eija Metsälä, Nicole Richli Meystre, José Pires Jorge, Anja Henner, Tiina Kukkes, Cláudia Sá dos Reis |
| Abstract |
This study aims to identify European radiographers' challenges in clinical performance in mammography and the main areas of mammography that require more and better training. An extensive search was performed to identify relevant studies focused on clinical practice, education and training in mammography published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the English language. The data were analysed by using deductive thematic analysis. A total of 27 full text articles were read, evaluating their quality. Sixteen articles out of 27 were finally selected for this integrative review. The main challenges of radiographers' mammography education/training can be divided into three groups: training needs, challenges related to radiographers, and challenges related to the organization of education. The most common challenges of clinical performance in mammography among European radiographers involved technical performance, the quality of practices, and patient-centeredness. The introduction of harmonized mammography guidelines across Europe may serve as an evidence-based tool to be implemented in practice and education. However, the variability in human and material resources as well as the different cultural contexts should be considered during this process. • Radiographers' awareness of their professional identity and enhancing multiprofessional cooperation in mammography. • Radiographers' responsibilities regarding image quality (IQ) and optimal breast imaging performance. • Patient-centred mammography services focusing on the psychosocial needs of the patient. • Challenges: positioning, QC-testing, IQ-assessment, optimization of breast compression, communication, teamwork, and patient-centred care. • Introduction of evidence-based guidelines in Europe to harmonize mammography practice and education. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,758,607
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#601
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,307
of 312,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.