Client perceptions of the BreastScreen Australia remote radiology assessment model

Smith, Deborah, Johnston, Karen, Carlisle, Karen, Evans, Rebecca, Preston, Robyn, Beckett, Jessamy, Geddes, Danielle, Naess, Helen, Poole, Melissa, and Larkins, Sarah (2021) Client perceptions of the BreastScreen Australia remote radiology assessment model. BMC Women's Health, 21 (30).

PDF (Published Version) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (1MB) | Preview
View at Publisher Website:



Telehealth and teleradiology are increasingly used around the world to facilitate health care provision when the health care provider and clients are separated by distance. The BreastScreen Australia Remote Radiology Assessment Model (RRAM) is an initiative developed to address the challenges of inadequate access to a local radiological workforce in regional Australia. With the growth in telehealth innovations more broadly, the RRAM represents a departure from the traditional onsite model where a radiologist would be co-located with practice staff during assessment clinics. Understanding client satisfaction is an important consideration with new models. This article explores client perceptions of the RRAM including awareness, satisfaction with experiences, confidence in the quality of care being received, and preferences regarding models of service delivery.


Clients in four BreastScreen services across three Australian states and territories were invited to provide feedback on their experiences of the RRAM. Brief face-to-face interviews based on a survey were conducted at the conclusion of assessment clinic visits. Clients also provided feedback through surveys completed and returned by post, and online.


144 clients completed the survey regarding their experiences of the RRAM. The majority were aged between 50 and 59 years (55/144, 38.2%). Most had attended a BreastScreen service for either screening or assessment on a total of two to five occasions (85/142, 59.9%) in the past. Nearly all women who attended a RRAM clinic expressed satisfaction with their experience (142/143, 99.3%). Clients were aware that the radiologist was working from another location (131/143, 91.6%) and the majority believed there wouldn’t be any difference in the care they received between the RRAM and the onsite model (120/142, 84.5%). Clients generally had no particular preference for either the onsite or RRAM model of service delivery.


Clients’ high satisfaction with their clinic experiences, high confidence in care being received, and the majority having no preference for either the onsite or remote model indicates their acceptance of the RRAM. Client acceptance of the model supports continuation of the RRAM at these sites and expansion. Findings may inform future telehealth innovations where key health care team members are working remotely.

Item ID: 65757
Item Type: Article (Research - C1)
ISSN: 1472-6874
Keywords: Telemedicine; Telehealth; Teleradiology; Breast cancer; Rural and remote; Patient satisfaction; Patient preferences; Models of service delivery; Remote radiology; Breastscreen assessment
Copyright Information: © The Author(s) 2021. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creat ivecommons .org/publi cdoma in/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Funders: Australian Government Department of Health (AGDH), Queensland Department of Health (QDH), New South Wales Department of Health (NSWDH), Northern Territory Department of Health (NTDH)
Date Deposited: 28 Jan 2021 00:30
FoR Codes: 42 HEALTH SCIENCES > 4206 Public health > 420699 Public health not elsewhere classified @ 100%
SEO Codes: 92 HEALTH > 9204 Public Health (excl. Specific Population Health) > 920499 Public Health (excl. Specific Population Health) not elsewhere classified @ 100%
Downloads: Total: 836
Last 12 Months: 13
More Statistics

Actions (Repository Staff Only)

Item Control Page Item Control Page