ArticleSA journal of radiology2018
Interventionalists' perceptions on a culture of radiation protection.
Article in SA journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Protective Equipment and Personal Monitoring in Fluoroscopy-Guided Procedures: A Case Study in Portugal.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of a law amendment on dosimeter wearing in medical radiation workers: observational study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- A multicentre survey of knowledge and implementation of radiation protection techniques in cardiac cath-lab medical personnel.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- An audit of patient radiation doses in interventional radiology at a South African hospital.SA journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Radiation induced cataracts in interventionalists occupationally exposed to ionising radiation.SA journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Personal Protective Equipment Availability and Utilization Among Interventionalists.Safety and health at work · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOccupational exposure to ionising radiation poses potential health risks to radiation workers unless adequate protection is in place. The catheterisation laboratory is a highly contextualised workplace with a distinctive organisational and workplace culture.
objectiveThis study was conducted to understand the culture of radiation protection (CRP).
methodsThis study was a qualitative study and data were collected through 30 in-depth and 6 group interviews with 54 purposively selected South African interventionalists (interventional radiologists and cardiologists). The participants included a diversity of interventionalists who varied in sex, geographic location and years of experience with fluoroscopy. The transcribed data were analysed thematically using a deductive and inductive approach.
results'Culture of radiation protection' emerged as a complex theme that intersected with other themes: 'knowledge and awareness of radiation', 'radiation safety practice', 'personal protective equipment (PPE) utilisation' and 'education and training'.
conclusionEstablishing and sustaining a CRP provides an opportunity to mitigate the potentially detrimental health effects of occupational radiation exposure. Education and training are pivotal to establishing a CRP. The time to establish a culture of radiation in the catheterisation laboratory is now.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.