Awareness of radiation dose associated with common diagnostic procedures in emergency departments: A pilot study

Badawy, Mohamed Khaldoun; Sayakkarage, Dheeshana; Özmen, Mehmet

doi:10.4066/amj.2015.2452

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the fact that 63% of the subjects had received radiation protection education, such as formal lectures, tutorials, or workshops, and 37% ( n = 95) had not, 53% of the respondents were unaware of the ICRP's international recommendations. To increase the low confidence in radiation knowledge and to help in conveying the hazards to patients, further education is required [ 19 ]. Certain limitations in this study must be considered in future studies to accurately measure the awareness, attitudes, and perceptions of dental undergraduates and interns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Undergraduates and Interns’ Awareness, Attitudes, and Perception of Radiological Protection

Abuelhia

Alghamdi

Tajaldeen

et al. 2022

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical ionizing radiation is widely used in hospitals, in particular dental clinics, and in medical research to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of patients. The awareness, attitude, and perception of ionizing radiation exposure among dental undergraduate students and interns in radiological investigations and dental care clinics were investigated. A cross-sectional study was conducted; 17 questions were designed online using the software “QuestionPro,” which was licensed to the University of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal. Participants included senior medical dental students from Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University in their third to fifth years, as well as interns from King Fahad University Hospital and private dental care clinics. A total of 855 participants viewed, 360 started the questionnaire, and 258 (72%) completed it online. Overall, knowledge was lacking; 32% of respondents incorrectly believed that magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound used ionizing radiation, while 38% were unsure. Dental X-rays were deemed harmful by 40% (n = 104) of respondents. According to 33% (n = 85) of participants, there is no radiation scatter during an X-ray or CT scan, while 30% (n = 76) are unsure. Respondents (44%; n = 104) were unaware of the radiation dose from a chest radiograph and (45%; n = 116) overestimated the radiation dose. The effects of ionizing radiation on healthy tissue are known to more than half of the participants (54%). According to 39% of respondents, digital radiography exposes them to less radiation than traditional radiography. In terms of radiation protection and hazard, 46% said personal monitoring badges should be always worn and 58% (n = 150) said lead aprons should be used on a regular basis. 63% of the subjects had received radiation protection education, such as formal lectures, tutorials, or workshops, while 37% (n = 95) had not. 53% of the respondents were not aware of the international recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection. When asked if they would follow radiation protection protocols if they opened a private dental clinical practice in the future, 50% (n = 129) said they would.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Undergraduates and Interns’ Awareness, Attitudes, and Perception of Radiological Protection

Abuelhia

Alghamdi

Tajaldeen

et al. 2022

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies in the literature show that physicians have insufficient knowledge on the amount of radiation the patient is exposed to during radiological examinations [14,15,26,27] and there is a lack of awareness at undergraduate and postgraduate level [28,29]. The curriculum of undergraduate and postgraduate education should be revised to include a broader and more effective training on the subject.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An assessment of American pediatric surgeons found that 75% of all respondents underestimated the dose delivered by CT compared with a chest x-ray [37]. In addition to lack of knowledge, factors such as crowding and lack of time may cause non-questioning of the risks associated with imaging methods [14,15,26,38,39].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, it was determined that very few physicians provided information to the patients by discussing the benefits and risks of imaging methods. Other studies in the literature similarly show that only a low percentage of physicians talk to the patient about the risk of cancer due to imaging methods [14,26,30,38,45]. EMPs may order the imaging methods without obtaining patients’ consent if the patient is unstable, unconscious, or unresponsive or if the patient’s life is in danger.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies conducted to date were mostly focused on physicians’ knowledge regarding test-related radiation doses [14–16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Awareness of Risks Associated with the Use of Plain X-Ray, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Among Emergency Physicians and Comparison with that of Other Physicians: A Survey from Turkey

Demir

Akkaş

2019

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIncreased use of radiological imaging in all departments of medicine, especially in the Emergency Department, requires that physicians have a high level of knowledge regarding commonly used imaging methods and high awareness of the risks of examinations.Material/MethodsThe physicians were divided into 5 groups according to their specialties as emergency medicine physicians (EMPs), physicians from any specialty of internal sciences, physicians from any specialty of surgical sciences, general practitioners (GPs), and radiologists. A total of 700 physicians answered the questionnaire via email.Results15.7% of EMPs reported that they did not routinely perform any risk assessment before requesting computed tomography (CT); the rate was 17.9% for direct radiography and 29.3% for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The proportions of physicians who do not routinely perform risk assessments for direct radiography, CT, and MRI were as follows: 16.4%, 8.6%, and 19.3% in physicians from medical sciences, respectively; 25%, 22.9%, and 35% in physicians from surgical sciences, respectively; 24.3%, 14.3%, and 37.1% in GPs, respectively; and 27.1%, 22.1% and 37.1% in radiologists, respectively. In all radiological examinations, 1.4% of EMPs and ≤1.4% of other physicians routinely explain the risks associated with the imaging method to the patients, and discuss the risks and benefits of the imaging with the patients.ConclusionsAll physicians, including EMPs, need to undergo urgent training to increase their knowledge on risks of imaging methods and discussion of existing risks with patients.

show abstract

Awareness of ionizing radiation exposure among junior doctors and senior medical students in radiological investigations

Abuelhia

2016

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The awareness and knowledge of ionizing radiation exposure in radiological investigations among junior doctors and medical students were studied. The participants were year four to year six senior medical students enrolled at University of Dammam and interns in King Fahad University Hospital. The survey consisted of 22 questions designed online using the software 'QuestionPro' licensed to the University of Dammam. 100 hard copies were also distributed manually and collected. A total of 221 (88.5%) questionnaires were completed. 213 participants viewed, 151 started and 128 (84.7%) completed online. 93% of the distributed samples were completed. Overall knowledge was poor; 44% and 19% of the respondents thought incorrectly that MRI and ultrasound emit ionizing radiation, respectively. Respondents (92%; n = 203) underestimated the dose of abdominal spiral computed tomography (CT) and 4% thought no ionizing radiation involved in CT. 59% of respondents underestimated the radiation doses in nuclear medicine; bone scan 87%, PET/CT scan 67%, thyroid isotope scan 45% and PET scan 36%. 47% of the subjects had attended formal lectures, tutorials or workshops on radiation protection while 53% (n = 119) had not. For future education the majority stated they would prefer tutorials or workshops (42.3%) or problem-based learning/case studies (32.4%), while web-based modules would be their last choice (8.1%).

show abstract

Awareness of radiation dose associated with common diagnostic procedures in emergency departments: A pilot study

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

Dental Undergraduates and Interns’ Awareness, Attitudes, and Perception of Radiological Protection

Dental Undergraduates and Interns’ Awareness, Attitudes, and Perception of Radiological Protection

Awareness of Risks Associated with the Use of Plain X-Ray, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Among Emergency Physicians and Comparison with that of Other Physicians: A Survey from Turkey

Awareness of ionizing radiation exposure among junior doctors and senior medical students in radiological investigations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About