An Exploratory Analysis of Public Awareness and Perception of Ionizing Radiation and Guide to Public Health Practice in Vermont

Abstract

Exposure to ionizing radiation has potential for acute and chronic health effects. Within the general public of the United States, there may be a discrepancy between perceived and actual health risks. In conjunction with the Vermont Department of Health, a survey designed to assess public perception and knowledge of ionizing radiation was administered at 6 Vermont locations (n = 169). Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted. Eighty percent of respondents underestimated the contribution of medical imaging tests to total ionizing radiation exposure. Although only thirty-nine percent of participants were confident in their healthcare professional's knowledge of ionizing radiation, most would prefer to receive information from their healthcare professional. Only one-third of individuals who received a medical imaging test in the past year were educated by their healthcare professional about the risks of these tests. Those who tested their home for radon were twice as likely to choose radon as the greatest ionizing radiation risk to self. Although respondents had an above-average education level, there were many misperceptions of actual risks of exposure to ionizing radiation, particularly of medical imaging tests. Educating healthcare professionals would therefore have a profound and positive impact on public understanding of ionizing radiation.

Knowledge and Attitude towards Ionizing Radiation among Patients Attending the King Khalid Hospital Najran, Saudi Arabia

“…As with similar studies [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], the response rate was high as respondents willingly participated. This suggests the readiness of patients to learn more about radiation use and precautions needed to be taken.…”

Ionising radiation exposure from medical imaging – A review of Patient's (un) awareness

“…Six studies relating to health professionals 16e21 and eight studies not including nuclear medicine patients. 7e11,26e28 Further six studies were also not relevant due to: i) literature review on medical imaging and exposure to ionising radiation as public health issue 29 ; ii) review article on a diagnostic test itself 30 ; iii) time trade-off methodology study applied to physicians 31 ; iv) retrospective study evaluating radiation doses from a particular radiological procedure 32 ; v) cross sectional study to analyse awareness and perception of ionising radiation applied to public only 33 and vi) a recent mixed methods study applied to the general population with no specific nuclear medicine questions. 34 A total of four studies were selected for inclusion in the review: two mixed methods studies 12,15 were appraised using MMAT, one study 13 appraised with MMAT for quantitative descriptive studies and one qualitative study 14 appraised using the MMAT for qualitative studies.…”

Perception of Non-radiation Healthcare Workers about Radiation in Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana

“…Public concerns regarding medical exposure to radiation are comparatively high, as the risks regarding this exposure are generally unclear [12]. The knowledge gap and perception about the dangers of radiation among radiation experts and the general public are substantially wide, partly because the mass media which is the source of information to the general public, and may distort and misinterpret technical knowledge about radiation [13]. The perception of individuals about the various types of radiation risks differs.…”