Table 2.
Characteristics of pathologists (N = 252) who agreed with the perception statements about digital whole slide imaging
| Overall I think the benefits of digital whole slide imaging outweigh the concerns | P value for agree versus disagree | I would like to adopt digital whole slide imaging or increase use of it in my personal practice | P value for agree versus disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (row %) Agree | N (row %) Agree | |||
| Total | 129 (58.7) | 129 (51.4) | ||
| Age (years) | ||||
| <40 | 20 (64.5) | 0.70 | 17 (54.8) | 0.94 |
| 40–49 | 44 (54.7) | 40 (48.2) | ||
| 50–59 | 55 (59.8) | 48 (52.2) | ||
| ≥60 | 46 (60.9) | 24 (52.2) | ||
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 96 (60.4) | 0.44 | 84 (52.8) | 0.55 |
| Female | 51 (55.4) | 45 (48.4) | ||
| Affiliation with academic medical center | ||||
| No | 100 (55.0) | 0.04 | 83 (45.4) | 0.01 |
| Yes, adjunct/affiliated | 32 (76.2) | 30 (71.4) | ||
| Yes, primary appointment | 15 (55.6) | 16 (59.3) | ||
| Fellowship training in breast pathology | ||||
| No | 73 (57.0) | 0.62 | 69 (53.9) | 0.42 |
| Yes, surgical and/or breast pathology | 74 (60.2) | 60 (48.8) | ||
| Years interpreting breast pathologya | ||||
| <5 | 28 (62.2) | 0.89 | 22 (48.9) | 0.47 |
| 5–9 | 27 (61.4) | 27 (61.4) | ||
| 10–19 | 50 (56.2) | 42 (47.2) | ||
| ≥20 | 42 (57.5) | 38 (52.1) | ||
| Percent of caseload interpreting breast specimens | ||||
| <10 % | 76 (59.4) | 0.30 | 65 (50.8) | 0.29 |
| 10–24 % | 57 (54.8) | 51 (49.0) | ||
| >25 % | 14 (73.7) | 13 (68.4) | ||
| Number of breast cases per week | ||||
| <5 | 33 (57.9) | 0.81 | 28 (49.1) | 0.88 |
| 5–9 | 66 (60.5) | 55 (50.5) | ||
| 10–19 | 34 (54.0) | 33 (52.4) | ||
| >20 | 14 (63.6) | 13 (59.1) | ||
| Considered an expert in breast pathology by colleagues | ||||
| No | 113 (79.3) | 0.26 | 97 (48.7) | 0.10 |
| Yes | 34 (65.4) | 32 (61.5) | ||
aNot including residency/fellowship training