Assessment of radiation protection awareness and knowledge about radiological examination doses among Italian radiographers

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate radiation protection basic knowledge and dose assessment for radiological procedures among Italian radiographersMethodsA validated questionnaire was distributed to 780 participants with balanced demographic characteristics and geographic distribution.ResultsOnly 12.1 % of participants attended radiation protection courses on a regular basis. Despite 90 % of radiographers stating to have sufficient awareness of radiation protection issues, most of them underestimated the radiation dose of almost all radiological procedures. About 5 % and 4 % of the participants, respectively, claimed that pelvis magnetic resonance imaging and abdominal ultrasound exposed patients to radiation. On the contrary, 7.0 % of the radiographers stated that mammography does not use ionising radiation. About half of participants believed that radiation-induced cancer is not dependent on age or gender and were not able to differentiate between deterministic and stochastic effects. Young radiographers (with less than 3 years of experience) showed a higher level of knowledge compared with the more experienced radiographers.ConclusionsThere is a substantial need for radiographers to improve their awareness of radiation protection issues and their knowledge of radiological procedures. Specific actions such as regular training courses for both undergraduate and postgraduate students as well as for working radiographers must be considered in order to assure patient safety during radiological examinations.Main messages• Radiographers should improve their knowledge on radiation protection issues.• Only 12.1 % of participants attended radiation protection courses on a regular basis.• Specific actions must be considered in order to increase knowledge and awareness.

Awareness of radiation protection and dose levels of imaging procedures among medical students, radiography students, and radiology residents at an academic hospital: Results of a comprehensive survey

“…As reported in a previous paper of ours [16], the questionnaire was found to have acceptable internal reliability (␣ = 0.780; CI 95 0.762 ÷ 0.852) as a measure of knowledge of essential radiation protection topics. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was also assessed separately among the radiology residents, medical students, and radiography students.…”

“…(3) lumbar spine X-ray dose; (4) mammography dose (bilateral, two projections per side); (5) chest CT dose; (6) pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) dose; (7) 18-fluorodeoxiglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography ( 18 F-FDG PET-CT) dose; (8) abdominal ultrasound (US) dose; (9) myocardial scintigraphy dose (2-day protocol with 99m TC-sestamibi) [16].…”

Awareness of medical radiation exposure among patients: A patient survey as a first step for effective communication of ionizing radiation risks

“…On average, cardiologists underestimate the dose of myocardial perfusion imaging by 300 to a thousand times [14]. Medical radiologists themselves underestimate the radiation doses associated with a CT scan by 50-500 times [14] use ionizing radiation [15]. Such faulty knowledge is transferred directly onto patients when they discuss the reasons for having a medical imaging test and its related risks with medical specialists [16][17][18][19][20].…”

Radiation protection for surgeons and anesthetists: practices and knowledge before and after training

“…Lacking any validated questionnaires for RP, an ad hoc questionnaire was developed based on several bibliographic sources [15,16,19,[26][27][28] and distributed before and after training. The questionnaire was nominative to compare pre/post training responses and included When the x-ray tube is horizontal, you position yourself:…”