Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28303693›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2017

The opinions of radiographers, nuclear medicine technologists and radiation therapists regarding technology in health care: a qualitative study.

Sil Aarts, Forra Cornelis, Yke Zevenboom, Patrick Brokken, Nicole van de Griend, Miriam Spoorenberg, Wendy Ten Bokum, Eveline Wouters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Qualitative evaluation of the role of RTTs IGRT specialists and their influence on treatment delivery.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sil AartsFontys University of Applied Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Chair of Health, Innovations & Technology (HIT), Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Forra CornelisFontys University of Applied Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Chair of Health, Innovations & Technology (HIT), Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Yke ZevenboomFontys University of Applied Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Chair of Health, Innovations & Technology (HIT), Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Patrick BrokkenFontys University of Applied Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Chair of Health, Innovations & Technology (HIT), Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Nicole van de GriendFontys University of Applied Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Chair of Health, Innovations & Technology (HIT), Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Miriam SpoorenbergFontys University of Applied Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Chair of Health, Innovations & Technology (HIT), Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Wendy Ten BokumFontys University of Applied Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Chair of Health, Innovations & Technology (HIT), Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Eveline WoutersFontys University of Applied Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Chair of Health, Innovations & Technology (HIT), Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNew technology is continuously introduced in health care. The aim of this study was (1) to collect the opinions and experiences of radiographers, nuclear medicine technologists and radiation therapists regarding the technology they use in their profession and (2) to acquire their views regarding the role of technology in their future practice.

methodsParticipants were recruited from five departments in five hospitals in The Netherlands. All radiographers, nuclear medicine therapists and radiation therapists who were working in these departments were invited to participate (n = 252). The following topics were discussed: technology in daily work, training in using technology and the role of technology in future practice. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using open and axial coding.

resultsA total of 52 participants (57.7% radiographer) were included, 19 men and 33 women (age range: 20-63). Four major themes emerged: (1) technology as an indispensable factor, (2) engagement, support and training in using technology, (3) transitions in work and (4) the radiographer of the future. All participants not only value technological developments to perform their occupations, but also aspects such as documentation and physical support. When asked about the future of their profession, contradictory answers were provided; while some expect less autonomy, others belief they will get more autonomy in their work.

conclusionTechnology plays a major role in all three occupations. All participants believe that technology should be in the best interests of patients. Being involved in the implementation of new technology is of utmost importance; courses and training, facilitated by the managers of the departments, should play a major role. Only when a constant dialogue exists between health care professionals and their managers, in which they discuss their experiences, needs and expectations, technology can be implemented in a safe and effective manner. This, in turn, might positively influence quality of care.

Indexed as

Nuclear MedicineRadiographyRadiotherapySurveys and QuestionnairesBiomedical TechnologyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansAssistive technologyhealth care professionalshealth care technologynuclear medicine technologistsradiation therapistsradiographerstechnology

Identifiers

PMID28303693
PMCPMC5355371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.