Background: Health information technology helps patients to take better care of themselves and improves health status of patients with chronic diseases, such as diabetes. Objective: This study aimed to identify factors influencing the use of health information technology in diabetes management. Methods: This was a review study conducted in 2019. To obtain the related articles, databases including Scopus, Web of Science, Proquest and PubMed were searched and the time frame was between 2010 and 2018. Initially, 1159 articles were retrieved and after screening 28 articles were selected to be included in the study. Results: Factors influencing the use of health information technology in diabetes management could be divided into the motivational and inhibitory factors and each of them could be categorized into five groups of organizational, technical, economic, individual and ethical/legal factors. The motivational factors included training, system ease of use, economic support, having computer literacy, and maintaining privacy and confidentiality. The inhibitory factors included a lack of long-term planning, technical problems, inadequate financial resources, old age, and concerns over confidentiality issues. Conclusion: Identifying motivational and inhibitory factors can help to make better use of technology for diabetes management. This approach, in turn, can improve the acceptability of the technology and saves cost, reduces long-term complications of diabetes, and improves quality of life in diabetic patients.

Background COVID-19 was discovered in February in China. Due to the high prevalence of the disease, early detection and rapid isolation of patients are the vital points for controlling the outbreak. The purpose of this study was to determine the correct location of chest CT scan in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Main text The current study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2959 papers were found in all national and international databases. The study has been reported based on the PRISMA checklist. All analyses were done by CMA Ver. 2 software. The statistical analysis results show that the GGO observation level in the available shape was 46% in CT scan results, and the consolidation observation level in the general form was 33% in CT scan results. Pleural effusion was 7%, and linear opacity observation level was 24% in CT scan results in the general form. The CT scan test sensitivity level was gained 94.7%, and PCR test sensitivity level was achieved as 94.8%. This level was 89% in the early stage. Conclusion The chest CT has about 24% higher diagnostic sensitivity than the PCR test, in the early stage. GGO revealed a declining process and also indicates that GGO is an early symptom of the disease in CT scan. Linear opacity is the reason behind the initial dyspnea in coronavirus suffering patients referring to the medical centers. The extra-pulmonary lesions increase in the last stage of the disease that makes the patient’s worse.

Background Identifying the level of radiology students and radiologist's awareness about their knowledge of radiation risks and radiation protection and their understanding of radiation dose levels in medical imaging tests will help global and national lawmakers adjust laws according to the recognized need in studies. The significance of this study is further enhanced when it is considered a lack of radiation awareness may increase the risk of radiation damage to themselves and patients. Method: This Crossectional study is done on 180 people, including 62 people were students (radiology residents and technologists), and 118 people were radiology staff (radiologists and radiographers). For measuring the awareness of participants, a prepared questionnaire which had a total of 22 questions. The poll was divided into three sections of which: Demographics data, Radiation protection awareness, and knowledge of radiologists about dose assessment. The questionnaire reliability was assessed in terms of internal consistency utilizing the Cronbach’s alpha (0.85_). A P-value of less than 0.05 was set a threshold for statistical sig-nuisance. Statistical analysis was carried out using software SPSS version 22. Result Most students believed that 1-year-old girls had the most sensitivity to radiation, while most staff found that radiation risk was unrelated to age and sex. Both staff and students found that crews working in nuclear medicine departments were more exposed to radiation (the majority). Most students and faculty also chose breast tissue as the most sensitive organ against radiation. It should be noted that among the staff responses, a significant number of bones were also selected. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Approximately 82 percent of students chose a dose of Lumbar X-ray exams between 1 and 50 times the PA chest, and only 9 percent answered the question correctly (100 − 50 times). However, 27% of employees chose the correct answer. Students on the average dose of mammography had more choice (1–10 times) of a PA chest test, while staff preferred 100–500. (Both groups did not perform well in this question). The crew performed better on the dose resulting from a PET-CT test as well as the dose estimate from a nuclear medicine heart scan, and selected 36% correct response (more than 500 times the PA chest), while students had a lower rating (1–10 times) than others. Conclusion Most students and staff believed that they had a suitable or sufficient level of awareness of ionizing radiation. Overall, 45% of students and staff rarely had any training or retraining (37%). Radiology students had a better level of knowledge about radiation protection than team, while team had better estimates in discussing dose assessment. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Students and staff had accurate estimates of the dose received in a PA chest and the average dose of background radiation. Both groups had little information on mammography, but had good knowledge of ultrasound, MRI, and CT scans. In general, staff and students had a good understanding of nuclear medicine dose assessment. (Staff performed better)

Background: Identifying the level of radiology students and staffs's awareness of their knowledge of radiation risks and radiation protection and their understanding of radiation dose levels in medical imaging procedures will help global and national lawmakers adjust laws according to the recognized need in studies. The significance of this study is further enhanced when it is considered a lack of radiation awareness may increase the risk of radiation damage to themselves and patients.Method: This Crossectional study is done on 180 participants, including 62 participants were students (radiology residents and technologists), and 118 participants were radiology staff (radiologists and radiographers). For measuring the awareness of participants, a prepared questionnaire which had a total of 22 questions. The poll was divided into three sections of which: Demographics data, Radiation protection awareness, and knowledge of radiologists about dose assessment. The questionnaire reliability was assessed in terms of internal consistency utilizing the Cronbach’s alpha (0.85_). A P-value of less than 0.05 was set a threshold for statistical sig-nuisance. Statistical analysis was carried out using software SPSS version 22. Result: Most students believed that 1-year-old girls had the most sensitivity to radiation, while most staff found that radiation risk was unrelated to age and sex. Both staff and students found that crews working in nuclear medicine departments were more exposed to radiation (the majority). Most students and faculty also chose breast tissue as the most sensitive organ against radiation. It should be noted that among the staff responses, a significant number of bones were also selected. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Approximately 82 percent of students chose a dose of Lumbar X-ray exams between 1 and 50 times the PA chest, and only 9 percent answered the question correctly (100-50 times). However, 27% of employees chose the correct answer. Students on the average dose of mammography had more choice (1-10 times) of a PA chest test, while staff preferred 100-500. (Both groups did not perform well in this question). The crew performed better on the dose resulting from a PET-CT test as well as the dose estimate from a nuclear medicine heart scan, and selected 36% correct response (more than 500 times the PA chest), while students had a lower rating (1-10 times) than others.Conclusion: In self-reported; most students and staffs believed that they had a suitable or sufficient level of awareness of ionizing radiation. Overall, 45% of students and staff rarely had any training or retraining (37%). Radiology students had a better level of knowledge about radiation protection than team, while team had better estimates in discussing dose assessment. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Students and staff had accurate estimates of the dose received in a PA chest and the average dose of background radiation. Both groups had little information on mammography, but had good knowledge of ultrasound, MRI, and CT scans. In general, staff and students had a good understanding of nuclear medicine dose assessment.