Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DeBruhl, N. D.
Right arrow Articles by Mason, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by DeBruhl, N. D.
Right arrow Articles by Mason, A. M.

Radiology, Vol 201, 433-437, Copyright © 1996 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Mobile mammography: results of a national survey

ND DeBruhl, LW Bassett, NW Jessop and AM Mason
Iris Cantor Center for Breast Imaging, Department of Radiological Sciences, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6952, USA.

PURPOSE: to learn about mobile mammography in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of 82 questions was designed, pilot tested, and sent to mobile mammography facilities. The questions addressed many aspects of mobile programs, including administrative, financial, equipment, personnel, film processing, quality assurance, and communication of results. RESULTS: Of the 367 facilities that were mailed surveys, 159 facilities completed the survey, and 30 (19%) of those had discontinued their mobile programs. Seventy-six of 158 (48%) mobile facilities had performed mobile mammography for 1-5 years, and 69 of 158 (44%) had performed mobile mammography for more than 5 years. Seventy-two of 156 (46%) facilities were hospital-owned, and 25 of 156 (16%) were radiologist-owned. One hundred seven of 159 (67%) mobile facilities performed screening only. One hundred fourteen of 152 (75%) facilities charged +80.00 or less for screening. Mobile facilities averaged 20 examinations per day and served diverse populations. Sixty- seven of 159 (42%) facilities accepted self-referred women. Thirty-one percent of the facilities performed on-board processing. Only 71 of 149 (47%) facilities were financially profitable or breaking even, but 112 of 154 (73%) facilities would undertake a mobile project again. CONCLUSION: Mobile programs provide an opportunity to increase access to screening mammography, but they face many obstacles.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1996 by the Radiological Society of North America.