2010
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.09.3847
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Knowledge and Attitudes of Emergency Department Patients Regarding Radiation Risk of CT: Effects of Age, Sex, Race, Education, Insurance, Body Mass Index, Pain, and Seriousness of Illness

Abstract: Patients did not estimate the risk of development of cancer from their imaging examinations as high and were more concerned about having their condition diagnosed with CT than about the risk of future cancer. Knowledge and attitudes differed by age, race, education, insurance status, and pain level but not by sex, body mass index, or perceived seriousness of condition.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
60
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
4
60
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, patients may have a general expectation that all physicians participating in their care will be available for consultation, or patients may simply be at greater ease once they have had direct human interaction with the doctor interpreting their images. Such findings are consistent with past studies that report a desire by patients to receive more information regarding radiologic testing directly from their health care providers [10,12,13]. Finally, our data do not make clear why patients undergoing imaging to follow-up on a known cancer were less likely to wish to meet with the radiologist before the examination.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Thus, patients may have a general expectation that all physicians participating in their care will be available for consultation, or patients may simply be at greater ease once they have had direct human interaction with the doctor interpreting their images. Such findings are consistent with past studies that report a desire by patients to receive more information regarding radiologic testing directly from their health care providers [10,12,13]. Finally, our data do not make clear why patients undergoing imaging to follow-up on a known cancer were less likely to wish to meet with the radiologist before the examination.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…[6][7][8] When considering why patients might be poorly informed, several possibilities exist. Many health care providers have little knowledge about radiation and thus are poorly equipped educators.…”
Section: Commentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Strategies included routine cytologic screening at 1-to 5-year intervals and a baseline scenario reflecting current US screening rates. 6 Costs included screening, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, patient time, and patient transportation (eTable 3). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated (additional cost divided by the additional health benefit of a strategy compared with the next-less-costly strategy) and discussed in the context of $50 000 to $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, commonly cited thresholds indicating good value for money in the United States.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two recent studiesconfirmed that the most of patients (74%) would consider that having their situation diagnosed with CT ismore important than disturbing about radiation and patients had insufficient knowledge about radiation protection (15,20) .…”
Section: Rationale:-mentioning
confidence: 99%