Clinician perspectives on considering radiation exposure to patients when ordering imaging tests: a qualitative study

Kruger, Jenna; Chen, Alice Hm; Rybkin, Alex; Leeds, Kiren; Frosch, Dominick L.; Goldman, Lee

doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002773

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings are in agreement with those of previous studies showing that neither the role of ionizing radiation nor the risks it poses in diagnostic imaging are well understood by patients or caregivers, a knowledge gap found with clinicians as well [26,27]. However, in contrast with previous studies, the current study surveyed a large number of patients and caregivers and identified specific knowledge gaps regarding risks of diagnostic imaging procedures, including the fact that many patients believed that sterility and heritable mutations are real risks of such procedures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oncology Patient Perceptions of the Use of Ionizing Radiation in Diagnostic Imaging

Steele

Jones

Clarke

et al. 2016

Journal of the American College of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

“…Arguably, mutual education about diagnostic imaging and its risks may result in moreeffective shared decision making, and alleviate clinician concerns that discussing the risks of radiation exposure with patients will deter patients from undergoing the studies they actually need [26,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Oncology Patient Perceptions of the Use of Ionizing Radiation in Diagnostic Imaging

Steele

Jones

Clarke

et al. 2016

Journal of the American College of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This study also reported that 93% of doctors would not routinely offer a discussion to patients regarding radiation exposure, and that 95% of patients would also not raise these questions themselves. 17 A focus group study in 2013 19 with clinicians demonstrated they would welcome more information and guidelines to help them to initiate discussions with patients and engage them in the informed decision-making process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Medical imaging is the main source of artificial radiation exposure. Evidence, however, suggests that patients are poorly informed about radiation exposure when attending diagnostic scans. This review provides an overview of published literature with a focus on nuclear medicine patients on the level of awareness of radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging. Methods: A review of available literature on awareness, knowledge and perception of ionising radiation in medical imaging was conducted. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were subjected to critical appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: 140 articles identified and screened for eligibility, 24 critically assessed and 4 studies included in synthesis. All studies demonstrated that patients were generally lacking awareness about radiation exposure and highlighted a lack of communication between healthcare professionals and patients with respect to radiation exposure. Conclusion: Studies demonstrate a need to better inform patients about their radiation exposure, and further studies focusing on nuclear medicine patients are particularly warranted. Implications for practice: Adequate and accurate information is crucial to ensure the principle of informed consent is present.

show abstract

“…14 A previous qualitative study showed that displaying clinically relevant radiation exposure information may improve the discussion with patients when ordering a new test. 15 However, although some authors have detailed different strategies to improve communication about medical radiation benefits and potential risk, 7 there are no data on what clinicians think is the most appropriate way to communicate this potential risk to patients.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of clinicians' knowledge and practices regarding medical radiological exposure: findings from a mixed-methods investigation (survey and qualitative study)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess the impact of initiatives aiming to increase clinician awareness of radiation exposure; to explore the challenges they face when communicating with patients; to study what they think is the most appropriate way of communicating the long-term potential risks of medical radiological exposure to patients.DesignA quantitative and qualitative evaluation through a survey and focal groups.SettingSan Juan Hospital and Dr Peset Hospital (Southeast Spain) and clinicians from Spanish scientific societies.ParticipantsThe surveys were answered (a) in person (216: all the radiologists (30), urologists (14) and surgeons (44) working at both participant hospitals; a sample of general practitioners from the catchment area of one hospital (45), and a consecutive sample of radiologists attending a scientific meeting (60)) or (b) electronically through Spanish scientific societies (299: radiologists (45), pneumologists (123), haematologists (75) and surgeons (40)). Clinicians were not randomly selected and thus the results are limited by the diligence of the individuals filling out the survey.Primary and secondary outcome measuresClinicians' knowledge and practices regarding medical radiological exposure, and what they considered most appropriate for communicating information to patients.ResultsNearly 80% of the clinicians surveyed had never heard of the European recommendations. Fewer than 20% of the clinicians surveyed identified correctly the radiation equivalence dose of intravenous urography or barium enema. It was reported by 31.7% that they inform patients about the long-term potential risks of ionising radiation. All participants agreed that the most appropriate way to present information is a table with a list of imaging tests and their corresponding radiation equivalence dose in terms of chest X-rays and background radiation exposure.ConclusionsMedical radiological exposure is frequently underestimated and rarely explained to patients. With a clear understanding of medical radiological exposure and proper communication tools, clinicians will be able to accurately inform patients.

show abstract

Clinician perspectives on considering radiation exposure to patients when ordering imaging tests: a qualitative study

Cited by 11 publications

References 45 publications

Oncology Patient Perceptions of the Use of Ionizing Radiation in Diagnostic Imaging

Oncology Patient Perceptions of the Use of Ionizing Radiation in Diagnostic Imaging

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

Evaluation of clinicians' knowledge and practices regarding medical radiological exposure: findings from a mixed-methods investigation (survey and qualitative study)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About