Development of a System to Evaluate and Communicate Radiation Risk

Wiatrowski, Wayne A.; Giles, Edwin R.; Cooke, E. P.

doi:10.1097/00004032-199601000-00017

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some have suggested that it may be appropriate to provide the individual organ doses, although this is not normally included in informed consent forms. 24 One study of institutional review boards' (IRBs') acceptance of risk statements for studies that involve exposure to radiation concluded that risk statements were more likely to compare study risks with those in a similar radioactive study or with the Radioactive Drug Research Committee (RDRC) organ radiation limits. A smaller number of IRBs compared exposure with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) occupational or nonoccupational limits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Acceptance and Understanding of Risk in the Emergency Department:Are All Risk Statements Created Equally?

Feldman

Risbano

Mitchell

et al. 2002

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Objective: To determine whether mathematically equivalent but conceptually different presentations of risk from radioactive isotope exposure might affect the rate of agreement to participate in a hypothetical research study. Methods: This was a prospective study of consenting English-speaking subjects more than 18 years of age who were asked whether they would agree to participate in a mock study when presented with six mathematically equivalent statements of research-related risk. Participants were classified as recognizing the equivalence of the risk statements if they accepted all or refused all of the risk statements. Results: Three hundred forty-six subjects were enrolled. There were 55 subjects (16%; 95% CI = 12% to 20%) who refused all of the six risk statements, and 23 participants (6.7%; 95% CI = 4% to 9%) who accepted all of the given risk statements. Most of the participants (77%; 95% CI = 73% to 82%) did not recognize that the six risk statements were equivalent and agreed to some, or did not understand some of the risk statements. In stepwise multivariate logistic regression, being white, being of older age, and having higher education were associated with a higher likelihood of accepting or rejecting all six of the risk statements. Conclusions: Ethnicity, age, and education affected whether patients recognized the equivalence of six risk statements for a hypothetical study of low-dose radiation. Risk acceptance may be more likely when familiar concepts are used to express research risks. Researchers must focus on strategies that enhance the understanding of research risks and address the reasons for nonparticipation by subjects who are younger, of different ethnic or cultural background, or of lower education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Acceptance and Understanding of Risk in the Emergency Department:Are All Risk Statements Created Equally?

Feldman

Risbano

Mitchell

et al. 2002

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several authors have published examples of radiation risk statements that could be used to inform the consent of participants (including healthy volunteers) in medical research [2,8,[13][14][15]. The information provided to participants who are also patients should state that they will be exposed to ionising radiation and the procedures should be named.…”

Section: The Information That Should Be Providedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation information and informed consent for clinical trials

Caon

2008

J. Radiol. Prot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examples of the statements about the radiation from medical imaging in the information for participants provided to the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) for approval are presented and discussed. There is considerable scope for improvement in the information about radiation that is presented to potential participants in clinical trials. Many radiation statements seem only intended to allay fear and anxiety about radiation rather than providing accurate information. This situation cannot be said to be conducive to allowing the participant to give informed consent to their involvement in a clinical trial in which ionising radiation is used. As many clinical trials are international and conducted at many sites (sometimes over 100), we would expect the same statements to have been seen by members of HRECs in many countries. Few HRECs include a member who is an expert in radiation. Hence, to ensure that the information is sound, those sections of the participant information that refer to radiation should be written or reviewed by a specialist in radiation protection such as a medical physicist, a health physicist or a radiation safety officer.

show abstract

Operational Health Physics

Miller¹

2005

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of the operational health physics papers published in Health Physics and Operational Radiation Safety over the past fifteen years indicated seventeen general categories or areas into which the topics could be readily separated. These areas include academic research programs, use of computers in operational health physics, decontamination and decommissioning, dosimetry, emergency response, environmental health physics, industrial operations, medical health physics, new procedure development, non-ionizing radiation, radiation measurements, radioactive waste disposal, radon measurement and control, risk communication, shielding evaluation and specification, staffing levels for health physics programs, and unwanted or orphan sources. That is not to say that there are no operational papers dealing with specific areas of health physics, such as power reactor health physics, accelerator health physics, or governmental health physics. On the contrary, there have been a number of excellent operational papers from individuals in these specialty areas and they are included in the broader topics listed above. A listing and review of all the operational papers that have been published is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, a sampling of the excellent operational papers that have appeared in Health Physics and Operational Radiation Safety is presented to give the reader the flavor of the wide variety of concerns to the operational health physicist and the current areas of interest where procedures are being refined and solutions to problems are being developed.

show abstract

Development of a System to Evaluate and Communicate Radiation Risk

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluating Acceptance and Understanding of Risk in the Emergency Department:Are All Risk Statements Created Equally?

Evaluating Acceptance and Understanding of Risk in the Emergency Department:Are All Risk Statements Created Equally?

Radiation information and informed consent for clinical trials

Operational Health Physics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About