Patients’ Perceptions of Radiation Exposure Associated With Mammography

Hollada, Jacqueline; Speier, William; Oshiro, Thomas; Marzan-McGill, Roslynn; Ruehm, Stefan G.; Bassett, Lawrence W.; Wells, Colin

doi:10.2214/ajr.14.13650

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More generally, our findings are in line with those from previous studies, revealing an unmet need for awareness campaigns about medical radiation addressed to the general population. [26][27][28][29][30] Efforts to improve patient awareness about CT and radiation protection have yielded some results, 28 yet much remains to be done. In addition, our findings highlighted patients' limited knowledge about the association between body mass index and delivered CT radiation dose, Furthermore, most surveyed patients were unaware of the potential radiation risks to which they may have been exposed if their imaging had required ionizing radiation, with more than half of the respondents receiving no radiation information before, during, or after imaging examinations despite more stringent legal requirements about delivering patient information and recording and reporting of doses on procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, 71.0% of surveyed patients knew that CT relies on ionizing radiation, whereas only 38.4% (men and women combined) knew that mammography uses ionizing radiation, with women knowing that mammography is radiation based more frequently than men (46.4% vs 29.2%; P < .001). To this latter point, a questionnaire-based study conducted by Hollada et al 27 on 1725 patients presenting for a mammogram showed that, although 65% of the patients responded that they had been informed of the risks and benefits of the examination, 60% overestimated the amount of radiation in a mammogram, suggesting that targeted patient education for those undergoing any type of imaging procedure should be heightened. More generally, our findings are in line with those from previous studies, revealing an unmet need for awareness campaigns about medical radiation addressed to the general population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Although imaging has become a standard tool of modern medicine, its widespread use has been paralleled by an increasing cumulative radiation dose to patients despite technological advancements and campaigns calling for better awareness and minimization of unnecessary exposures. OBJECTIVETo assess patients' knowledge about medical radiation and related risks. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA survey study of hospitals in Italy was conducted; all patients in waiting rooms for medical imaging procedures before undergoing imaging examinations at 16 teaching and nonteaching hospitals were approached to take the survey. The survey was performed from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESSurvey respondents' basic knowledge of ionizing radiation levels and health risks, earlier imaging tests performed, and information and communication about radiation protection issues.RESULTS Among 3039 patients invited to participate, the response rate was 94.3% (n = 2866).Participants included 1531 women (53.4%); mean (SD) age was 44.9 (17.3) years. Of the 2866 participants, 1529 (53.3%) were aware of the existence of natural sources of ionizing radiation. Mammography (1101 [38.4%]) and magnetic resonance imaging (1231 [43.0%]) were categorized as radiation-based imaging modalities. More than half of the 2866 patients (1579 [55.1%]; P = .03) did not know that chest computed tomography delivers a larger dose of radiation than chest radiography, and only 1499 (52.3%) knew that radiation can be emitted after nuclear medicine examinations (P = .004). A total of 667 patients (23.3%) believed that radiation risks were unrelated to age, 1273 (44.4%) deemed their knowledge about radiation risks inadequate, and 2305 (80.4%) preferred to be informed about radiation risks by medical staff. A better knowledge of radiation issues was associated with receiving information from health care professionals (odds ratio [OR], 1.71;

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study also found that 91% of patients were not being explained by the medical personnel regarding the radiation risks. Study by Hollada et al, 2015 [62] on 1725 mammography patients found out that 60% of them claimed that mammography yield high dose. The misunderstanding may lead the patients to avoid mammogram.…”

Section: The Perception Of Radiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation Awareness among Secondary School Students in Perak, Malaysia

Maulana¹,

Nadia²,

Othman³

et al. 2018

IJET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, the number of student enrolment for Radiography programme in Universiti Kuala Lumpur – Royal College of Medicine Perak is the lowest compared to other programmes. Hence, this study is done to determine students’ tendency to further their study in radiography or related programme and determine the radiation awareness among the secondary school students. A survey was conducted on n=429 form four secondary school students under national standard curriculum. 75.5% of the data were collected from seven government secondary schools in Perak, while the remaining were collected from visitors of our institution. The result shows the average score of basic knowledge regarding radiation with mean score of 59.53% and standard deviation of 18.89%. Meanwhile, printed reading materials is the highest type of information source and video game is the lowest with 25.9% and 0.2% respectively. 46.2% claimed that they are fear to radiation and all of them agreed that the radiation disaster incidences was their main reason. 92.3% claimed that they will seek for their parents’ opinion and 17.5% claimed to follow their parents’ choice with regard to the choice of future career while 50.8% claimed that they may continue their higher education in radiography or related programme. Result also showed that fear to radiation effects the students’ tendency to choose radiography or related programme as their choice [p<0.05]. It can be concluded that the radiation awareness among secondary school students in this study is assumed as average and the tendency to further study in radiography or related programme is quite low mainly due to their fear to radiation disaster incidence.

show abstract

“…FFDM has done much to reduce radiation dose in screening mammography, but many women are still concerned with possible risks associated with annual exams and dose. 6,7 Reducing dose increases noise impacting image quality. Noise can be dealt with at numerous points in the imaging chain, including the display on which the final presentation of images to the breast imager occurs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing display luminance as a means to enhance interpretation accuracy and efficiency when reducing full-field digital mammography dose

Krupiński

2018

J. Med. Imag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reducing dose increases noise impacting image quality but can be offset by increasing display luminance. Two contrast detail mammography images were obtained at 26 kV and the same distance between detectors, at 45 and 50 mAs resulting in entrance surface doses of 7.09 and 7.88 mGy, respectively. They were processed to make average gray level of the background independent of the dose level while maintaining original SNR. Eight radiologists viewed the images at 420, , and SpotView™ a tool that resulted in an average display luminance of . Percent correct (PC) for all three luminances was higher for high versus low dose. Performance was always higher with high dose no matter what the luminance. For low dose, PC was highest with SpotView™, and SpotView™ and were significantly higher than . At high dose, SpotView™ PC was significantly higher than both lower luminances. Average time per image was lower in high dose, and, at both doses, time decreased as luminance increased, with SpotView™ having significantly shorter times. Increasing luminance from 420 to significantly increases target detection by and with SpotView™ by . Increasing display luminance with SpotView™ significantly decreases reading time by 16.0%.

show abstract

Patients’ Perceptions of Radiation Exposure Associated With Mammography

Abstract: Efforts should be made to accurately inform women of the risks and benefits of mammography, specifically highlighting the low dose of mammographic ionizing radiation and providing objective facts to ensure that they are making an informed decision regarding screening.

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging

Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging

Radiation Awareness among Secondary School Students in Perak, Malaysia

Increasing display luminance as a means to enhance interpretation accuracy and efficiency when reducing full-field digital mammography dose

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About