Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms

Keywords Breast screening, FAST MRI, Abbreviated breast MRI, Qualitative, COM-B, Implementation. ALL Metrics - Views Downloads How to cite this article Harding S, Geach R, Jones L and Fast MRI Study Group. Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13817.2) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente Select a format first ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] Sam Harding1,2, Rebecca Geach1, Lyn Jones https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7439-7037 1, Fast MRI Study GroupSam Harding1,2, Rebecca Geach1, Lyn Jones https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7439-7037 1, Fast MRI Study Group PUBLISHED 24 Apr 2025 Author details Author details 1 North Bristol NHS Trust, Westbury on Trym, England, UK 2 University of Bristol School of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol, England, UK 2 University of Bristol School of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol, England, UK Sam Harding Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rebecca Geach Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Lyn Jones Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW REVIEWER STATUS Abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) is being introduced into breast screening practice worldwide. Increased provision of abMRI will require mammogram readers to learn abMRI-interpretation and the implementation of abMRI-reading into clinical practice. The present study explores the acceptability of the implementation of developed reader training, and the barriers and facilitators to training programme participation and subsequently to reading the training programme assessment task of abMRI images in a work/NHS context familiar to the individual participants. Fourteen NHS Breast Screening Programme mammogram readers, who were undertaking abMRI interpretation training, participated in semi-structured interviews. Template analysis using the a priori implementation framework, COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour) was undertaken. The training day was well received. Participants identified that their varying ranges of knowledge and experience (capability) was accounted for. Participation in the research was appreciated by all, but especially those new to reading MRI. Radiographers commented that learning to read and understand the abMRI images was motivational, and this helped drive implementation. It was noted that organisational leadership is needed to fully enable change in practice. COVID-19 was commented on in relation to its impact on image reading. The project demonstrates that production of training for reading abMRI images and subsequent implementation of changes to practice needs to be carefully planned. Changes must be led by the needs of staff undertaking the tasks. When this is achieved the engagement in training is positive and the barriers are more readily removed or mitigated for both individuals and organisations. AbMRI is part of the solution to reducing waiting times for MRI within the NHS, however, training for reading abMRI images and implementation to practice needs to be carefully planned. A short version of an MRI called an abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) is being introduced into breast screening practice worldwide. To achieve this in the NHS, staff that current interpret mammograms will have to learn to do the same for abMRI. The present study explores how acceptable a training programme developed to teach these skills is to staff, and to look at the barriers and facilitators to training programme participation and subsequently to interpreting the training programme assessment task of abMRI images in a work/NHS context familiar to the individual participants. Fourteen NHS Breast Screening Programme mammogram readers, who were undertaking abMRI interpretation training, participated in semi-structured interviews. The interview data was assessed by using a methodology called ‘Template Analysis’. This uses a pre-existing framework, to map factors onto, in this study it was the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour). The training day was well received. Participants said that their varying ranges of knowledge and experience (capability) was accounted for by the content and the delivery style of the day. Participation in the research was appreciated by all, but especially those new to reading MRI. Radiographers commented that learning to read and understand the abMRI images was motivational, and this helped drive implementation. It was noted that organisational leadership is needed to fully enable change in practice. COVID-19 was commented on in relation to its impact on image reading and interpretation. The project demonstrates that production of a training programme for reading abMRI images and subsequent implementation of changes to practice needs to be carefully planned. Changes must be led by the needs of staff undertaking the tasks. When this is achieved the engagement in training is positive and the barriers are more readily removed or mitigated for both individuals and organisations. Breast screening, FAST MRI, Abbreviated breast MRI, Qualitative, COM-B, Implementation. Corresponding Author(s) Sam Harding ([email protected]) Grant information: This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its ‘Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme’ (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-1217-20008). Author STP is supported by an NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF – 2016-09-018). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Harding S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Harding S, Geach R, Jones L and Fast MRI Study Group. Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13817.2) First published: 20 Mar 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13817.1) Latest published: 24 Apr 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13817.2) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Details have been added to the article to provide greater detail of the professions of the readers interviewed in the study. That interviews took place within 1 week of the readers completing there assessment of images has been added, and a paragraph addressing potential selection bias has been added to the discussion. Contact details have been supplied in the ‘Data availability statement’ for readers of the article who may wise to obtain a copy of the semi-structure interview schedule. Details have been added to the article to provide greater detail of the professions of the readers interviewed in the study. That interviews took place within 1 week of the readers completing there assessment of images has been added, and a paragraph addressing potential selection bias has been added to the discussion. Contact details have been supplied in the ‘Data availability statement’ for readers of the article who may wise to obtain a copy of the semi-structure interview schedule. Contact details have been supplied in the ‘Data availability statement’ for readers of the article who may wise to obtain a copy of the semi-structure interview schedule. To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table. 1. Upscaling abbreviation MRI (abMRI) provision requires the workforce of mammogram readers to be able both learn and implement the reading of the abMRI images. 2. The principles of implementation science must be combined with pragmatic understanding of individual and organisational level barriers to produce acceptable and usable training and process change. 3. A single day training can be accessed by clinical staff and made acceptable through consultation regarding venue and timing. abMRI abbreviated breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging COM-B Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour FAST MRI first post-contrast subtracted images Magnetic Resonance Imaging fpMRI full-protocol breast MRI IS Implementation science MIP maximum-intensity projection MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging NHSBSP National Health Service Breast Screening Programme PACS Picture Archiving and Communication System SpA supporting professional activities Breast cancer screening saves lives by finding breast cancers early1. Screening with mammography is cost effective but imperfect, as it results in over-diagnosis and under-diagnosis2,3. It also uses ionising radiation and carries a small risk of radiation-induced breast cancer4. An ideal screening test for breast cancer would be able to selectively detect aggressive cancers without detecting those that if left without treatment would not cause harm during a woman’s lifetime. It would also not use ionising radiation, be acceptable to screening clients, and no more burdensome than mammography to acquire or to report. Abbreviated MRI (abMRI) is proposed as a screening tool for breast cancer that could prove more cost effective than mammograms for some women5–7. However, its feasibility, acceptability, cost effectiveness and its effect on overdiagnosis remains to be defined through research. Learning to read and interpret full-protocol breast MRI (fpMRI) is a significant process, taking a number of years to achieve accreditation8–10. However, a previous single-centre study, of 8 readers from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), suggested that NHSBSP mammogram readers could be effectively trained to interpret abbreviated MRI (abMRI) protocol with a single day’s training11,12. This has been supported by a larger study covering 6 sites and 37 readers13. A simplified form of abMRI (first post-contrast subtracted images (FAST MRI), is displayed as maximum-intensity projection (MIP) and subtracted slice stack, and this is the form used in the current study. Integration of new imaging test into the existing NHSBSP framework requires the multi-professional workforce of readers of all levels of experience with breast MRI to undergo additional training14. However, the ability of the workforce to effectively read abMRI does not mean that services can be implemented in practice. Implementation science (IS) is a crucial framework in the development of tools within healthcare environments. As healthcare institutions strive to integrate technological advancements, the principles of IS offer a systematic approach to address the unique challenges in this complex setting. The exploration of factors such as organisational culture, clinician readiness, and workflow integration becomes paramount in ensuring the successful implementation. This perspective aligns with the works of Proctor et al.15 and Nilsen16, who emphasise the significance of understanding contextual factors and the need for tailored implementation strategies. By employing IS methodologies, developers can navigate the intricate landscape of healthcare systems, align tools with clinical workflows, and address the diverse needs of professionals. This facilitates the effective adoption of educational technologies and contributes to improved patient outcomes. The incorporation of IS principles in the development of learning tools for healthcare environments is pivotal for realising the transformative potential of technology15,16. The authors of the present study explored the acceptability of the implementation of the developed reader training, the barriers and facilitators to participating in the training programme and reading the abMRI images in a NHS context. The success of the training is reported elsewhere11,13. Patient and public involvement is at the heart of the FAST MRI programme of work, although patients were not involved in the development or design of this work. Wider stakeholder engagement in the form of Radiologist and Radiographers, not part of the current project, were collaborated with in relation to deciding on the data collection methodology and the content of the interview schedule. This work is a sub-study of an ethically approved programme of work (REC: 19/LO/1473 and IRAS:258203). Participants from the main study were additionally consented to participant in the interviews undertaken and reported herein. NHSBSP multi-professional mammogram readers, fully qualified to interpret mammograms17, at 6 sites (NHSBSP screening units) within the South-West Region of England were invited to participate (5 Advanced practitioners, 3 Breast Clinicians, 5 Consultant Radiologists, 1 Radiographer). One group interpreted fpMRI in their routine clinical practice, and another group did not. Participants attended 1 of eight single days of face-to-face standardised training, and then interpreted a test set of abMRI scans. Interviews were undertaken within 1 week of the participants completion of reading the test sets, but prior to any feedback on accuracy of their judgements. Fourteen interviews were undertaken (Group 1, n=5 Consultant Radiologists, and Group 2 n=9; Advanced Practitioner Radiographers and Breast Clinicians). These interviews were conducted via Zoom. All interviews were undertaken by the primary author, and no prior relationship existed between her and any of the interviewees. All interviewees were in their workplace at the time of the interview, as was the interviewer. No payment or other gratuity was made to the participants of these interviews. A semi-structured interview schedule was developed with stakeholders from previous research12. Template analysis was applied to the transcripts of the interviews. The Template method supports a hybrid approach of both deductive (a priori) and inductive qualitative analysis. In this case using an a priori implementation framework whilst remaining open to the possibility that the framework is not complete or completely implementable within an acute NHS trust18,19. Following transcription of the interviews transcripts were uploaded to NVivo 1220, and the King & Brooks19 template process undertaken: Stage 1: Transcription Stage 2: Familiarisation with the interview Stage 3: Coding Stage 4: Development or selection of a working analytical framework The a priori framework selected for use from this stage of analysis was the COM-B21. COM-B is an abbreviation of ‘Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour’ and is a model relating to the theory of behaviour21. COM-B posits behaviour as the result of an interaction between three components: capability, opportunity, and motivation and is used in IS research as well as behaviour change. Stage 5: Applying the analytical framework with consideration of additional inductive codes Coding patterns were considered in light of the COM-B framework with tentative themes being redefined or discarded. Stage 6: Charting data into the framework matrix Refined codes were then mapped against the a priori framework, and additional themes were retained for inductive inclusion in the interpretation of the data. Stage 7: Interpreting the data19,22 This analysis was primarily completed by the fist author, who is a health psychologist and senior research fellow with significant experience with qualitative research and IS. The coding was reviewed by the second and third authors, both of whom are consultant radiologists. A self-selecting subset of participants in an abMRI interpretation training study previously reported in 13 were interviewed. The 14 participants had been NHSBSP mammogram readers for an average 8.8 years (Range 1 year to 22 years). All but one participant were female. Interviews lasted between 15:52 and 46:02 minutes (average 34:25 minutes) A challenge recognised by the research team was that of the range of (breast MRI) experience of attendees (capability). It was also critical that the participants were able to attend the training day and that the physical arrangements (opportunity) were such that attendance was easy for them. Capability All participants commented on how knowledge and understanding were developed and built on from basic to advanced levels, and this was appreciated by those that were both new to reading MRI and those with more experience. ‘For me obviously with years of experience in MRI there were some bits that I didn’t need but I think that just thinking about the very diverse needs of everybody attending it, I thought it was extremely well organised actually and very worthwhile.’ (RG_46) Opportunity In the development of the training days, we consulted potential participants about what factors were important to maximise the chances of attending the training. This was reflected on during the interviews. The physical location of the training was important to the recruits. Providing a full day’s training outside the participants’ place of work was required, being able to start later than a normal working day, to enable a longer journey than normal (commute) and finish early was appreciated. ‘The parking, everything, all the organisation side of things went really, really smoothly. The lectures were really interesting, so I knew exactly what my role was in the study and what I was meant to be doing and they went through, like you just have, all the consent and everything was really clear, and then the room and the set up and being able to work on a workstation, the coffee breaks were a little bit long, but lunch was great, and everything being hand on more, I got a lot from it.’ (AG_26) Ensuring sufficient staffing to enable breast clinics to continue at the participant’s NHS trust was of consideration from the individuals’ perspectives and for those who organised services. They reported that being able to collaborate with the research team to match their different trusts work patterns with training dates made it much easier to take part. ‘One of the great things was being able to tell the research team what the services challenges are. Being asked for this type of information right from when the project was being planned [prior to obtaining funding] made it possible to plan my own attendance as well as when other staff could be available.’ (RP_08) Motivation Although not specifically a motivation for attending the training, there was an appreciation of the considerations made in relation to location, timing, parking, refreshment breaks and supplying a good lunch. Following the training, there was an unexpected gap before the participants were able to access the training images (median 3.5 months (range 1.8 – 8.9). This is reflected in the participants’ discussions about their capability to undertake the activity. Capability The gap between training and implementation meant that participants felt they needed to revisit the training, and the materials supplied to them during the training day ‘training day was a long time before we actually started doing them [reading assessment images] so by the time we actually got the images it was quite a distance so it was remembering what we were meant to be looking for? I know there were information sheets and I obviously went through all those but it’s not quite the same as when you’ve just done it on a course and it’s fresh in your memory.’ (AG_34) It was recognised that some participants (radiologists and breast clinicians) would have dedicated SpA (supporting professional activities) time each week, and it was anticipated that these people would undertake reading of test images in this time. Whilst other participants, via their trusts, were offered to be compensated for the time it took them. ‘It is always difficult finding the time to do a new task but knowing I could be reimbursed for the time was nice, especially when you know that some of your colleagues get time each week to undertake this type CPD activity and I don’t.’ (AC_17) Opportunity Physically, across the sites, the software was available on a limited number of Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) workstations, and these were required for specific clinical tasks, leading to reduced availability, as clinical reporting takes precedent to research. Due to software limitations and randomisation of image presentation, each participant was required to complete reading of all of the assessment images on the same workstation. So, participants had to wait or negotiate use of these machines or undertake the task outside of normal working hours when there was availability. ‘The computers were in individual Radiologists offices and I am sure they would have been more than happy for us to go in and use that reading station, however, I think a lot of us felt we didn’t really want to park ourselves on a regular basis for long periods of time so I did tend to come in early, my children are a bit bigger so I can drop them at school quite early, so I came in early and tried to read 15 cases before I started work officially and that’s how I got through them.’ (AG_34) Reading the test images coincided with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The participants had to deal with rapidly changing working patterns and workforce requirements. In the interviews the participants talked about how they could undertake reading the assessment images as well as the rapidly changing rules and regulations within the working environment. ‘One day you were able to get into the office to read the images, and the next day only one person can be in the room, and obviously have to prioritise the clinical images over the research.’ (AG_27) However, for those readers who had a compatible PACS workstation available at home, or whose organisation made this possible early during the pandemic, the change to work patterns and the reduction in clinically routine image reading associated with the national COVID-related pause in breast screening (March-May 2020) facilitated their engagement with the project. ‘Yer know prior to Covid it's sort of you’re working flat out and working at 100 miles an hour, and now things aren't necessarily going at 100 miles an hour it's quite nice to sort of take the extra time to understand the teaching, review the notes and do the images’ (AN_23) Motivation The study team was in close contact with all the readers across the study, and there was appreciation that we were supportive and not overbearing. The participants noted that they ‘never felt under pressure at all to get it finished, everybody was very pleasant and just really grateful that we were doing it.’ (AG_21). The radiographers all commented that learning to read and understand the abMRI images was highly motivational, especially as they were more able to understand MRI images shown during MDT meetings and participate in those discussions. ‘Reading the images has transferred across to the day job because now when they show MRI pictures up in the MDT meeting my ears prick up and I look at it and they have started doing the scans and showing scans the way that the FAST MRI scan interprets it. Its really good to be able to understand and ask questions.’ (AC_17). Inductive coding led to one theme outside of the COM-B model being identified, that was relevant to both attending the training and being able to complete the training set. This theme was that of ‘leadership’. Figure 1 shows how leadership fits within the a priori framework of the COM-B used within the template analysis. Going forward the readers indicated that the software and other resources, needed to be accessible in the same way that the current MRI reading setup is, with a recognition that to make this happen: ‘service leads need to ‘buy-in’ to spending department money on new software and equipment, or at least to investing the time in training and subsequent updates and auditing of performance.’ (RC_14) ‘You would need to be able to have it [the software] on radiologists personal workstations, and you’d need to be able to have their own personal workspaces, need to be within that workspace and probably integrated into the PACS system. But this would all depend on the department bosses Okaying it all.’ (RS_30) It was suggested that being part of this research, future projects and potential service changes shows a desire of the service to demonstrate they are leaders in providing quality services of the community they serve. One of the organisational drivers to engage with this research and future stuff would be that if you said that it’s not just research and you made it clear that the plans is to implement a programme across the whole of the UK where MRI is done differently saving the NHS, you know, and also that it helps a current under-served community. (RP_08) The wider project, of which this work is part, was designed to assess if a single day abMRI interpretation training program for mammogram readers can achieve an overall diagnostic performance within benchmarks published for fpMRI13. The focus of the current paper was to understand readers thoughts about the acceptability of the developed training programme (prior to being told they achievement on the training) and its implementation into practice. Using template analysis19 with the a priori framework of the COM-B model21 the recognition and preparation for the varying ranges of knowledge and experience of breast MRI (capability) of the participants was reported as being welcomed by all, making everyone feel included and able. The opportunity to be part of the research was appreciated by all participants, and especially by those new to reading MRI. But equally as important was that the training day was specifically tailored to fit into normal working hours, with accessible locations and free parking. The processes put in place to enable participation in the training are embedded in evidence-based recommendations to maximise training effectiveness23,24. The feedback from the currents study’s participants supports previous studies that have reported that well designed and implemented training provides benefits to individuals, teams, organisations, and society, including positive impact on organisational bottom-lines25. It is widely recognised that effectiveness of training needs to be assessed and this can be achieved in two keys ways. Firstly, are people able to successfully/correctly complete the tasks they have been trained to do, in real life settings, and secondly are the trainees are able to undertake the task (capable) and are they happy and able to do so (motivation and opportunity). The first of these issues is reported and addressed by Jones et al.13. The second is addressed by the findings presented in the current paper. As noted in the results section, the time between the training day and being able to implement the completion of the test set (summative assessment task) was longer than the researchers had planned. This led to participants feeling less able than they had immediately following their training, but they were self-motivated to revisit the materials supplied to them during the training day and reach out to the research team. It is relatively easy to look at the evidence-based methods to design training, but it is harder to implement across different healthcare services and organisations. It is recommended that after the training, physical obstacles are removed and appropriate tools and advice from the team are available, and that when problems did arise the trainees are happy to give rapid, open and honest feedback to the trainers (research team), so that they can amend and refine the implementation across all the sites26. In the abMRI study this was undertaken by trying to optimise workstation access and support to find the time within a working day to undertake the required image reading. Overall, the nature of the leadership from within the research team, and the individual study sites (organisations) was recognised in the current project as vital. The trainees (participants) identified that going forward organisational leadership and championing of the change of practice will be needed to enable implementation of an abMRI national programme. This qualitative study was complimentary to a quantitative study where readers interpreted the test set of images on one occasion13 and so we can provide no information on intra-reader variability. We have not mapped people’s qualitative commentary on training and implementation with their previous professional image reading experience or their effectiveness at the image reading assessment. For this type of analysis to inform future implementation, a larger sample would be needed, and content analysis undertaken to code the qualitative data so that it can to some extent be quantitatively analysed with the effectiveness data. Additional detail may be available relating to implementation if this larger data set was subject to thematic analysis, however participation in the qualitative interview was a voluntary project within the wider quantitative work. The wider quantitative work consisted of 37 participants. All were invited to participate in the interviews, however only 14 did. A range of reasons were provided for not being available including retiring from practice (n=3), general workload (n=12), maternity leave (n=2), sickness (n=4), and (n=2) administrative error where clinic was not cancelled, and therefore were unavailable for interview. It is possible that this biased the results, however, review of the interpretation of the interviews by the FAST MRI Study Group suggested an accurate understanding. The study was complicated by spanning the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Research participants had very different experiences of work including redeployment over this time period, it is possible that implementation of this work was actually easier for some, as fewer people were using the limited resources (PACS workstations) at core times, so readers could access the images when it suited them. Template analysis using the a priori framework of the COM-B, has proven to be a structured and effective way to understand the barrier and facilitators to the implementation of a developed abMRI training and assessment package. The project has demonstrated that production of training and the subsequent implementation of changes to practice can be undertaken in a way that is acceptable to individuals and services but must be led by the needs of the staff, in this specific case those reading the abMRI images. This work is a sub-study of an ethically approved programme of work assessed by London‐Bromley Research Ethics Committee (REC: 19/LO/1473) and by the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (IRAS:258203). Participants from the main study provided additional written consent to participant in the interviews undertaken and reported herein Due to the qualitative nature of the collected data it has not be linked or uploaded to any publicly archived datasets. If researchers would like access to this data they can approach the corresponding author with a written request. Data regarding the quantitative work on which the accuracy of the training tool should be requested via [email protected]. A copy of the semi-structure interview schedule used in this work should be requested via [email protected]. Qualitative data collected and reporting herein is not available for sharing due to stakeholder views during development that this may impact peoples willingness to participate in the interviews. Study participants did not provide consent for their qualitative data to be uploaded to a repository. If readers would like to apply for access to anonymised data, they can email the corresponding author. This email should; specifying the use to which the data will be put, the time frame of the project and institution which will hold responsibility for the governance of the project that the data is being requested for. Ideally ethical approval will also be provided to cover the requesters project. NVivo 1220 is a proprietary software. A free open access equivalent to this would be QualCoder available from GitHub (https://github.com/ccbogel/QualCoder/releases/tag/3.6). Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) is a proprietary software. However, no open access equivalent is available. This study was performed on behalf of the FAST MRI Study Group which at the time of this study, in addition to the authors, comprised Andrea Marshall, Premkumar Elangovan, Sadie McKeown-Keegan, Sarah Vinnicombe, Sian Taylor-Phillips, Mark Halling-Brown, Christopher Foy, Elizabeth O’Flynn, Hesam Ghiasvand, Claire Hulme, Janet A. Dunn, Christiane Kuhl, Jennifer Wookey, Janice Rose, Victoria Taylor, John Giford, Rosie Gray, Thomas William-Jones, Karen Litton, Simon Lloyd, Jim Steel, Elisabeth Kutt, Alexandra Valencia, Alice Pocklington, Anjum Mahatma, Helen Massey, Gillian Clark, Clare McLachlan, Gemini Beckett, Clare Alison, Miklos Barta, Claudia Betancourt, Julie Bramwell, Nichola Bright, Helen Burt, Louise Cann, Jane Ceney, Eleanor Cornford, Diana Dalgliesh, Sarah Doyle, Sarah Fearn, Dagmar Godden, Zoe Goldthorpe, Lucinda Hobson, Paula Hynam, Emma Jackson, Margaret Jenkin, Beckie Kingsnorth, Katherine Klimczak, Alice Moody, Sarah Perrin, Alison Peters, Elizabeth Preston, Anne Ratsey, Richard Sidebottom, Lesley Stephenson, Michelle Taylor, Erika Toth, Frances Vincent, Sharon Watkin, Sue Widdison, Jennifer Williams, Karen Wilmot, Sravya Singamaneni, Zsolt Friedrich, Joanne Robson, Elizabeth Cullimore and Anna Mankelow. The authors wish to thank the Breast Unit Support Trust (BUST) and the Independent Cancer Patients’ Voice (ICPV) charities and the NIHR Research Design Service (RDS) for their invaluable support. Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences - 1. Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, et al.: Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients. BMJ. 2015; 351: h4901. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 2. Autier P, Boniol M, Koechlin A, et al.: Effectiveness of and overdiagnosis from mammography screening in the Netherlands: population based study. BMJ. 2017; 359: j5224. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 3. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening: The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012; 380(9855): 1778–1786. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 4. Public Health England: Research and analysis: radiation risk with digital mammography in breast screening. 2017; (Accessed 30th October 2018). Reference Source - 5. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, et al.: Abbreviated breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): first postcontrast Subtracted images and Maximum-Intensity Projection—a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(22): 2304–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 6. Geach R, Jones LI, Harding SA, et al.: The potential utility of abbreviated breast MRI (FAST MRI) as a tool for breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2021; 76(2): 154.e11–154.e22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 7. Comstock CE, Gatsonis C, Newstead GM, et al.: Comparison of abbreviated breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection among women with dense breasts undergoing screening. JAMA. 2020; 323(8): 746–756. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 8. Fallenberg E: EUSOBI diploma. European Society of Breast Imaging, [cited 2021 Mar 30]. Reference Source - 9. Health Education England: NBIA training curriculum. National Breast Imaging Academy, [cited 2021 Mar 30]. Reference Source - 10. DeMartini W, Strigel R: Breast MR course ACR. American College of Radiologists, 2021; [cited 2021 Apr 6]. Reference Source - 11. Jones LI, Geach R, Harding SA, et al.: Can mammogram readers swiftly and effectively learn to interpret First post-contrast Acquisition Subtracted (FAST) MRI, a type of abbreviated breast MRI?: a single centre data-interpretation study. Br J Radiol. 2019; 92(1104): 20190663. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 12. Harding S, Geach R, Jones L, et al.: The use of ‘Think-Out-Loud’ methodology in the development of teaching materials for abbreviated breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan (FAST MRI) interpretation, and a comparison of the learning experience of two reader cohorts. Eur J Radiol Open. 2019; 6: 220–224. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 13. Jones LI, Marshall A, Flangovan P, et al.: Evaluating the effectiveness of abbreviated breast MRI (abMRI) interpretation training for mammogram readers: a multi-centre study assessing diagnostic performance, using an enriched dataset. Breast Cancer Res. 2022; 24(1): 55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 14. British Society of Breast Radiology, NHS England, Public Health England et al.: The breast imaging and diagnostic workforce in the United Kingdom: results of a survey of NHS breast screening programme units and radiology departments. The Royal College of Radiologists, London, Ref No. BFCR(16)2. d, 2016. Reference Source - 15. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC: Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013; 8: 139. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 16. Nilsen P: Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015; 10: 53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 17. Wilson R, Liston J, Thomas KG, et al.: Quality assurance guidelines for breast cancer screening radiology: second edition. 2011. Reference Source - 18. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, et al.: Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 117. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 19. King N, Brooks JM: Template analysis for business and management students. Sage: Los Angeles, 2017. Publisher Full Text - 20. QSR Nvivo 12. (accessed 03 July 2022). Reference Source - 21. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R: The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011; 6: 42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 22. Braun V, Clarke V: Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Sage: Los Angeles, 2022. Reference Source - 23. Aguinis H, Kraiger K: Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009; 60: 451–74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 24. Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Kraiger K, et al.: The science of training and development in organizations: what matters in practice. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2012; 13(2): 74–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 25. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al.: Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011; 38(2): 65–76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - 26. Davis R, D’Lima D: Building capacity in dissemination and implementation science: a systematic review of the academic literature on teaching and training initiatives. Implement Sci. 2020; 15(1): 97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Author details Author details 1 North Bristol NHS Trust, Westbury on Trym, England, UK 2 University of Bristol School of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol, England, UK 2 University of Bristol School of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol, England, UK Sam Harding Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rebecca Geach Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Lyn Jones Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its ‘Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme’ (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-1217-20008). Author STP is supported by an NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF – 2016-09-018). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) Copyright © 2025 Harding S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. metrics VIEWS $counts.viewCount downloads Citations CITE how to cite this article Harding S, Geach R, Jones L and Fast MRI Study Group. Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13817.2) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 24 Apr 2025 Revised Views 0 How to cite this report: Park VY. Reviewer Report For: Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15175.r35803) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v2#referee-response-35803 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v2#referee-response-35803 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 02 Jun 2025 Approved VIEWS 0 The widespread implementation of breast MRI screening faces several challenges, including the need to minimize scan time and ensure the availability of adequately trained personnel to interpret a substantially increased volume of studies. Efficient, targeted training will be essential, ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close The widespread implementation of breast MRI screening faces several challenges, including the need to minimize scan time and ensure the availability of adequately trained personnel to interpret a substantially increased volume of studies. Efficient, targeted training will be essential, particularly for readers without prior experience in breast MRI interpretation. This qualitative summary examines the acceptability of a training programme developed for mammogram readers to interpret abbreviated breast MRI, and identifies barriers and facilitators to participation and task performance. The findings offer useful insights for institutions considering similar training initiatives. The following comments are intended to enhance contextual clarity, especially for readers less familiar with previous related studies (references 11–13). The following comments are intended to enhance contextual clarity, especially for readers less familiar with previous related studies (references 11–13). - Although the Study Limitations section notes that 34 participants were initially invited, this number (n = 34) should also be reported in the Methods section. The current phrasing in the ‘Training context’ paragraph may be misinterpreted to suggest that only the 14 included participants were invited. - Regarding Capability on Training day, as participants commented on how the training was appropriate for individuals with varying levels of experience, it would be helpful to briefly describe how this aspect was incorporated into the programme. As this may fall outside the main scope of the study, referencing a previous publication with relevant details would aid reader understanding. - Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes - Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes - Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly - If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable - Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: breast imaging CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Park VY. Reviewer Report For: Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15175.r35803) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v2#referee-response-35803 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v2#referee-response-35803 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Views 0 How to cite this report: Seely JM. Reviewer Report For: Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15175.r35352) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v2#referee-response-35352 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v2#referee-response-35352 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 05 May 2025 Approved VIEWS 0 The authors have responded well to my ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close The authors have responded well to my reviews. I am satisfied with the results. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Breast Imaging - Radiologist CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Seely JM. Reviewer Report For: Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15175.r35352) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v2#referee-response-35352 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v2#referee-response-35352 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Mar 2025 Views 0 How to cite this report: Seely JM. Reviewer Report For: Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15011.r35042) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v1#referee-response-35042 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v1#referee-response-35042 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 09 Apr 2025 Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 This is an interesting summary of qualitative interviews of readers trained to learn Abbreviated breast MRI in a one-day training session. It explored the acceptability of the implementation of developed reader training, and the barriers and facilitators to training programme ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close This is an interesting summary of qualitative interviews of readers trained to learn Abbreviated breast MRI in a one-day training session. It explored the acceptability of the implementation of developed reader training, and the barriers and facilitators to training programme participation. The interviews summarized with some comments. There are details that are required to assist in the interpretation of the study. Although it is recognized that it was qualitative, the numbers are lacking on how many answered positively, or negatively for each category. The points below would help in the study communication and interpretation. - NHSBSP multi-professional mammogram readers, fully qualified to interpret mammograms – the way it is reported suggested that both radiographers and radiologists were trained, but this should be clearly stated. In the previous study, ref 11, the number of radiographers, breast clinicians and radiologists was listed. This would be expected for this study. - Participants attended a single day of face-to-face standardised training and then interpreted a test set of abMRI scans. Was this done at a single site on the same day for all participants? - The authors should clarify if the interviews were done after the test set was administered, or after the training set. If the former, they should provide the period of time that the test set was delivered subsequently, with the average and range. I believe this is separate to what the authors referred to in the text: “Following the training, there was an unexpected gap before the participants were able to access the training images (median 3.5 months (range 1.8 – 8.9). “ - Were participants paid to do the day? It is possible that payment for the radiographers may have biased the outcome, if they were paid to do the training while the radiologists were not. A bit more context on this would be helpful. - What was the timeline for the interviews after the training set or test set and was recall bias avoided? The authors should provide the timeframe for the interviews and should add the limitation of recall bias in the discussion. - It would be quite possible that the selection bias of only 14/37 respondents led to an incorrect or at least incomplete assessment of the results. That should be discussed as a limitation of the study. Do the authors have any ideas what drove the self-selection of the 14 who responded? - The questions asked during the interviews should be provided and a summary of whether standardized interview questions were asked of every participant. - Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes - Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly - Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly - If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable - Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Breast Imaging - Radiologist CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Seely JM. Reviewer Report For: Learning to read FAST MRI: Qualitative interviews with groups experienced reading mammograms [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:26 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15011.r35042) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v1#referee-response-35042 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-26/v1#referee-response-35042 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: - Approved - Approved with reservations - Not approved | Invited Reviewers | || |---|---|---| | 1 | 2 | | | Version 2 (revision) 24 Apr 25 | read | read | | Version 1 20 Mar 25 | read | Sign up for content alerts You are now signed up to receive this alert Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' - Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. - You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. - You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). - You work at the same institute as any of the authors. - You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. - You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. - You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with NIHR Open Research Already registered? Sign in close Error If you are a previous or current NIHR award holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from NIHR Open Research. We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to NIHR Open Research Sign In If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. Email us for further assistance. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here. You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here. Code not correct, please try again Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait...