Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31727071›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Evaluation of the impact of a brief educational message on clinicians' awareness of risks of ionising-radiation exposure in imaging investigations: a pilot pre-post intervention study.

Ben Young, Jo Cranwell, Andrew W Fogarty, Rob Skelly, Nigel Sturrock, Mark Norwood, Dominick Shaw, Sarah Lewis, Tessa Langley, Peter Thurley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. EANM procedural recommendations for managing the paediatric patient in diagnostic nuclear medicine.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Review
  6. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ben YoungDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. ben.young@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6451-9360
Jo CranwellDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Andrew W FogartyDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Rob SkellyRoyal Derby Hospital, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Nigel SturrockRoyal Derby Hospital, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Mark NorwoodRoyal Derby Hospital, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Dominick ShawNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Sarah LewisDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Tessa LangleyDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, University of Nottingham, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Peter ThurleyRoyal Derby Hospital, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBRoyal Derby Hospital · GBUniversity of Bath · GB

Funding

The Health Foundation 7600
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of increasing availability of computed tomography (CT) scans, judicious use of ionising radiation is a priority to minimise the risk of future health problems. Hence, education of clinicians on the risks and benefits of CT scans in the management of patients is important.

methodsAn educational message about the associated lifetime cancer risk of a CT scan was added to all CT scan reports at a busy acute teaching hospital in the UK. An online multiple choice survey was completed by doctors before and after the intervention, assessing education and knowledge of the risks involved with exposure to ionising radiation.

resultsOf 546 doctors contacted at baseline, 170 (31%) responded. Over a third (35%) of respondents had received no formal education on the risks of exposure to ionising radiation. Over a quarter (27%) underestimated (selected 1 in 30,000 or negligible lifetime cancer risk) the risk associated with a chest, abdomen and pelvis CT scan for a 20 year old female. Following exposure to the intervention for 1 year there was a statistically significant improvement in plausible estimates of risk from 68.3 to 82.2% of respondents (p < 0.001). There was no change in the proportion of doctors correctly identifying imaging modalities that do or do not involve ionising radiation.

conclusionsTraining on the longterm risks associated with diagnostic radiation exposure is inadequate among hospital doctors. Exposure to a simple non-directional educational message for 1 year improved doctors' awareness of risks associated with CT scans. This demonstrates the potential of the approach to improve knowledge that could improve clinical practice. This approach is easily deliverable and may have applications in other areas of clinical medicine. The wider and longer term impact on radiation awareness is unknown, however, and there may be a need for regular mandatory training in the risks of radiation exposure.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPhysiciansPilot ProjectsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Radiation DosageRadiation ExposureRadiation, IonizingTomography, X-Ray ComputedClinician educationClinician knowledgeComputed tomographyRadiation protectionRadiation risks

Identifiers

PMID31727071
PMCPMC6857139
OpenAlexW2986017778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.