Person: Armstrong, Katrina
Loading...
Email Address
AA Acceptance Date
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
Armstrong
First Name
Katrina
Name
Armstrong, Katrina
5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Publication The impact of active mentorship: results from a survey of faculty in the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital(BioMed Central, 2018) Walensky, Rochelle; Kim, Younji; Chang, Yuchiao; Porneala, Bianca C.; Bristol, Mirar N.; Armstrong, Katrina; Campbell, EricBackground: To assess mentorship experiences among the faculty of a large academic department of medicine and to examine how those experiences relate to academic advancement and job satisfaction. Methods: Among faculty members in the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine, we assessed personal and professional characteristics as well as job satisfaction and examined their relationship with two mentorship dimensions: (1) currently have a mentor and (2) role as a mentor. We also developed a mentorship quality score and examined the relationship of each mentorship variable to academic advancement and job satisfaction. Results: 553/988 (56.0%) of eligible participants responded. 64.9% reported currently having a mentor, of whom 21.3% provided their mentor a low quality score; 66.6% reported serving as a mentor to others. Faculty with a current mentor had a 3.50-fold increased odds of serving as a mentor to others (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.84–6.67, p < 0.001). Faculty who reported their mentorship as high quality had a decreased likelihood of being stalled in rank (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.78, p = 0.02) and an increased likelihood of high job satisfaction (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.77–8.63, p < 0.001) compared with those who reported their mentorship of low quality; further, having a low mentorship score had a similar relationship to job satisfaction as not having a mentor. Conclusions: A majority of faculty survey respondents had mentorship, though not all of it of high caliber. Because quality mentorship significantly and substantially impacts both academic progress and job satisfaction, efforts devoted to improve the adoption and the quality of mentorship should be prioritized. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1191-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.Publication Disparities in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use among women with early-stage breast cancer(Nature Publishing Group UK, 2017) Kim, Younji; McCarthy, Anne; Bristol, Mirar; Armstrong, KatrinaContralateral prophylactic mastectomy use has increased over the past decades among women with early-stage breast cancer. Racial differences in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use are well described, but with unclear causes. This study examined contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use among black and white women and the contribution of differences in perceived risk to differences in use. We surveyed women diagnosed with early-stage unilateral breast cancer between ages 41–64 in Pennsylvania and Florida between 2007–2009 to collect data on breast cancer treatment, family history, education, income, insurance, and perceived risk. Clinical factors—age,stage at diagnosis, receptor status—were obtained from cancer registries. The relationships between patient factors and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were assessed using logistic regression. The interaction between race and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on the perceived risk of second breast cancers was tested using linear regression. Of 2182 study participants, 18% of whites underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy compared with 10% of blacks (p < 0.001). The racial difference remained after adjustment for clinical factors and family history (odds ratio = 2.32, 95% confidence interval 1.76–3.06, p < 0.001). The association between contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and a reduction in the perceived risk of second breast cancers was significantly smaller for blacks than whites. Blacks were less likely than whites to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy even after adjustment for clinical factors. This racial difference in use may relate to the smaller impact of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on the perceived risk of second breast cancers among blacks than among whites. Future research is needed to understand the overall impact of perceived risk on decisions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and how that may explain racial differences in use.Publication Differences Among Cardiologists in Rates of Positive Coronary Angiograms(John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2015) Wasfy, Jason; Hidrue, Michael K.; Yeh, Robert; Armstrong, Katrina; Dec, George; Pomerantsev, Eugene; Fifer, Michael; Ferris, TimothyBackground: Understanding the sources of variation for high‐cost services has the potential to improve both patient outcomes and value in health care delivery. Nationally, the overall diagnostic yield of coronary angiography is relatively low, suggesting overutilization. Understanding how individual cardiologists request catheterization may suggest opportunities for improving quality and value. We aimed to assess and explain variation in positive angiograms among referring cardiologists. Methods and Results: We identified all cases of diagnostic coronary angiography at Massachusetts General Hospital from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013. We excluded angiograms for acute coronary syndrome. For each angiogram, we identified clinical features of the patients and characteristics of the requesting cardiologists. We also identified angiogram positivity, defined as at least 1 epicardial coronary stenosis ≥50% luminal narrowing. We then constructed a series of mixed‐effects logistic regression models to analyze predictors of positive coronary angiograms. We assessed variation by physician in the models with median odds ratios. Over this time period, 5015 angiograms were identified. We excluded angiograms ordered by cardiologists requesting <10 angiograms. Among the remaining 2925 angiograms, 1450 (49.6%) were positive. Significant predictors of positive angiograms included age, male patients, and peripheral arterial disease. After adjustment for clinical variables only, the median odds ratio was 1.23 (95% CI 1.0–1.36), consistent with only borderline clinical variation after adjustment. In the full clinical and nonclinical model, the median odds ratio was 1.07 (95% CI 1.07–1.20), also consistent with clinically insignificant variation. Conclusions: Substantial variation exists among requesting cardiologists with respect to positive and negative coronary angiograms. After adjustment for clinical variables, there was only borderline clinically significant variation. These results emphasize the importance of risk adjustment in reporting related to quality and value.Publication Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: A conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level(Wiley-Blackwell, 2014) Onega, Tracy; Beaber, Elisabeth F.; Sprague, Brian L.; Barlow, William E.; Haas, Jennifer; Tosteson, Anna N.A.; D. Schnall, Mitchell; Armstrong, Katrina; Schapira, Marilyn M.; Geller, Berta; Weaver, Donald L.; Conant, Emily F.Breast cancer screening holds a prominent place in public health, health care delivery, policy, and women's health care decisions. Several factors are driving shifts in how population-based breast cancer screening is approached, including advanced imaging technologies, health system performance measures, health care reform, concern for "overdiagnosis," and improved understanding of risk. Maximizing benefits while minimizing the harms of screening requires moving from a "1-size-fits-all" guideline paradigm to more personalized strategies. A refined conceptual model for breast cancer screening is needed to align women's risks and preferences with screening regimens. A conceptual model of personalized breast cancer screening is presented herein that emphasizes key domains and transitions throughout the screening process, as well as multilevel perspectives. The key domains of screening awareness, detection, diagnosis, and treatment and survivorship are conceptualized to function at the level of the patient, provider, facility, health care system, and population/policy arena. Personalized breast cancer screening can be assessed across these domains with both process and outcome measures. Identifying, evaluating, and monitoring process measures in screening is a focus of a National Cancer Institute initiative entitled PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens), which will provide generalizable evidence for a risk-based model of breast cancer screening, The model presented builds on prior breast cancer screening models and may serve to identify new measures to optimize benefits-to-harms tradeoffs in population-based screening, which is a timely goal in the era of health care reform.Publication Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel(Springer Science + Business Media, 2015) Freer, Phoebe E.; Slanetz, Priscilla; Haas, Jennifer; Tung, Nadine; Hughes, Kevin; Armstrong, Katrina; Semine, A. Alan; Troyan, Susan L.; Birdwell, RobynPurpose: Stemming from breast density notification legislation in Massachusetts effective 2015, we sought to develop a collaborative evidence-based approach to density notification that could be used by practitioners across the state. Our goal was to develop an evidence-based consensus management algorithm to help patients and health care providers follow best practices to implement a coordinated, evidence-based, cost-effective, sustainable practice and to standardize care in recommendations for supplemental screening. Methods: We formed the Massachusetts Breast Risk Education and Assessment Task Force (MA-BREAST) a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary panel of expert radiologists, surgeons, primary care physicians, and oncologists to develop a collaborative approach to density notification legislation. Using evidence-based data from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Cochrane review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, American Cancer Society (ACS) recommendations, and American College of Radiology (ACR) appropriateness criteria, the group collaboratively developed an evidence-based best-practices algorithm. Results: The expert consensus algorithm uses breast density as one element in the risk stratification to determine the need for supplemental screening. Women with dense breasts and otherwise low risk (<15% lifetime risk), do not routinely require supplemental screening per the expert consensus. Women of high risk (>20% lifetime) should consider supplemental screening MRI in addition to routine mammography regardless of breast density. Conclusion: We report the development of the multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to density notification. We propose a risk stratification algorithm to assess personal level of risk to determine the need for supplemental screening for an individual woman.