Evaluation of radiographers’ knowledge and attitudes of image quality optimisation in paediatric digital radiography in Saudi Arabia and Australia: a survey‐based study

Abstract

IntroductionDigital radiography (DR) systems enable radiographers to reduce the radiation dose to patients while maintaining optimised image quality. However, concerns still exist about paediatric patients who may be exposed to an increased level of radiation dose which is not needed for clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, awareness and attitudes, in terms of image quality optimisation of radiographers undertaking paediatric DR in Australia and Saudi Arabia.MethodsA survey‐based study was devised and distributed to radiographers from Australia and Saudi Arabia. Questions focused on Australian and Saudi Arabian radiographers’ knowledge and attitude of paediatric DR examinations.ResultsThere were 376 participants who responded to the survey from both countries. A major finding showed that most participants lack knowledge in the area of paediatric DR examinations. Most participants from Australia had received no formal training in paediatric digital radiography (79%), whereas nearly half of the participants from Saudi Arabia received no training (45%). Approximately three out of four radiographers from both countries believed that when using DR they did not need to change the way they collimate the beam as DR images can be cropped using post‐processing methods.ConclusionThe finding of this study demonstrates that radiographers from both countries should improve their understanding and clinical use of DR in paediatric imaging. More education and training for both students and clinicians is needed to enhance radiographer performance in digital radiography and improve their clinical practices.

Radiation Protection among South African Diagnostic Radiographers—A Mixed Method Study

“…Studies reveal that radiographers are setting exposures higher than necessary (Hayre, 2016;Lewis et al 2019a;Farzanegan et al 2020). Studies conducted in Yobe, Nigeria (Okeji et al 2010), Khuzestan-Iran, Ahvaz-Iran (Farzanegan et al 2020), Saudi Arabia (Karami et al 2016), Australia (Alsleem et al 2019), and South Africa (Essop et al 2019) show evidence of poor collimation practices. Consideration should also be given to the findings that only half of the Phase I respondents believed that radiation protection was rewarding, pleasant, and worth the time and that using radiation protection increased the time of the x-ray exam.…”

“…Studies reveal that radiographers are setting exposures higher than necessary (Hayre, 2016; Lewis et al 2019a; Farzanegan et al 2020). Studies conducted in Yobe, Nigeria (Okeji et al 2010), Khuzestan-Iran, Ahvaz-Iran (Farzanegan et al 2020), Saudi Arabia (Karami et al 2016), Australia (Alsleem et al 2019), and South Africa (Essop et al 2019) show evidence of poor collimation practices.…”

Knowledge of radiation protection among radiology professionals and students: A medical college-based study

“…Specific regular training courses should be designed at regular time interval at institutional and national level [ 24 ]. Several literature papers have also concluded a substantial need for radiographers to improve their awareness regarding radiation protection issues [ [24] , [25] , [26] ], greater emphasis should be given during study period [ [16] , [17] , [18] ]. In-service training for medical health workers should be provided with up-to-date study documents with adequate radiation protection training protocols and guidelines should be mandated [ 27 ].…”

Diagnostic radiography students' experiences of a practical method demonstrating the effect of milliampere-second in digital X-ray imaging systems

“…5 To optimise the benefits of DR, studies suggest radiographers utilise exposure technique factors and technical parameters i.e. kVp, mAs, focal spot size, source image distance among other considerations to minimise dose whilst maintaining optimal image quality in DR. 30 For 45 kVp, 200 mAs, 80 times the optimum exposure technique factor and 45 kVp, 400 mAs, 160 times the optimum exposure technique factor, with the exception of two participants, all other participants predicted that at the image would be black, "overexposed" or "burnt-out". In DR, overexposure up to 500 times the optimal exposure technique factor will maintain the image brightness.…”