Table 2.
Participant Characteristics | Performance Gap * | p-value† | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total n (col %) | Under Estimated Performance n (row %) | Closely Estimated Performance n (row %) | Over Estimated Performance n (row %) | ||
Perceptions of Test Set Difficulty (pre-program only unless otherwise noted) | |||||
Within the entire spectrum of breast pathology you see in your practice, how similar were the types of cases included in the sample sets? | |||||
I never see cases like these | 0 (0.0) | 0 (.) | 0 (.) | 0 (.) | 0.047 |
I sometimes see cases like these | 21 (23.6) | 4 (19.0) | 14 (66.7) | 3 (14.3) | |
I often see cases like these | 46 (51.7) | 5 (10.9) | 38 (82.6) | 3 (6.5) | |
I always see cases like these | 22 (24.7) | 4 (18.2) | 11 (50.0) | 7 (31.8) | |
Relative to breast cases you review in practice over the course of a year, did you find these sample sets: | |||||
Less Challenging | 2 (2.2) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.38 |
Equally Challenging | 60 (67.4) | 9 (15.0) | 43 (71.7) | 8 (13.3) | |
More Challenging | 27 (30.3) | 4 (14.8) | 18 (66.7) | 5 (18.5) | |
Continuing Medical Education Experiences | |||||
How many hours of continuing medical education in breast pathology interpretation (not including this program) did you complete last year: | |||||
None | 16 (17.6) | 3 (18.8) | 10 (62.5) | 3 (18.8) | 0.20 |
1 – 5 hours | 35 (38.5) | 6 (17.1) | 24 (68.6) | 5 (14.3) | |
6 – 8 hours | 14 (15.4) | 1 (7.1) | 13 (92.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
9 – 12 hours | 6 (6.6) | 2 (33.3) | 2 (33.3) | 2 (33.3) | |
13 – 18 hours | 6 (6.6) | 1 (16.7) | 4 (66.7) | 1 (16.7) | |
>18 hours | 14 (15.4) | 1 (7.1) | 10 (71.4) | 3 (21.4) | |
Which of the following types of continuing medical education do you most prefer: | |||||
Instructor-led Programs | 60 (65.9) | 8 (13.3) | 44 (73.3) | 8 (13.3) | 0.55 |
Self-Directed Programs | 24 (26.4) | 6 (25.0) | 15 (62.5) | 3 (12.5) | |
Other | 7 (7.7) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (57.1) | 3 (42.9) | |
Alignment of Perceptions | |||||
If you and the continuing medical education breast pathology experts disagree on some cases, do you think it would be more likely that you would: | |||||
Over interpret the case | 25 (27.5) | 5 (20.0) | 19 (76.0) | 1 (4.0) | 0.72 |
Under interpret the case | 16 (17.6) | 3 (18.8) | 12 (75.0) | 1 (6.3) | |
Unsure/Don’t Know | 50 (54.9) | 6 (12.0) | 32 (64.0) | 12 (24.0) | |
When you and the breast pathology experts disagreed on a case the experts called atypia was it more likely that you: (post-program only) | |||||
Over interpreted the case (call it more serious than experts) | 32 (34.8) | 4 (12.5) | 23 (71.9) | 5 (15.6) | 0.91 |
Under interpret the case (call it less serious than experts) | 41 (44.6) | 6 (14.6) | 28 (68.3) | 7 (17.1) | |
No trend for either over or under interpretation | 19 (20.7) | 4 (21.1) | 13 (68.4) | 2 (10.5) | |
Did you learn new information and strategies that you can apply to your work or practice? (post-program only) | |||||
No | 18 (20.2) | 5 (27.8) | 12 (66.7) | 1 (5.6) | 0.75 |
Yes | 71 (79.8) | 8 (11.3) | 50 (70.4) | 13 (18.3) |
note: low cutoff point is mean − 1 standard deviation (12.0) is −7.0 and high cutoff point is mean + 1 standard deviation is 18.0 where mean is 6.0 and standard deviation is 12.0
Performance Gap is the difference between actual agreement and the weighted average perceived agreement for four diagnostic classes (mapping 1) of breast cancer
p-value for cumulative logit model adjusted for actual agreement