ArticleSingapore medical journal2021
Assessment of knowledge and perceptions of medical radiation among caregivers and adolescent patients in the paediatric emergency department.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Survey of Awareness of Parents and Caretakers on Diagnostic Radiological Examination Related Radiation Exposure in a Tertiary Hospital in Malaysia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to assess understanding of the potential risks associated with medical imaging among caregivers and adolescent patients in a paediatric emergency department (PED) in Singapore.
methodsA prospective convenience sample survey was performed involving adolescents and caregivers presenting to our PED from December 2015 to May 2016. The questionnaire examined demographic data, knowledge of imaging procedures and radiation risks, and expectations regarding information provided about medical radiation.
resultsA total of 349 questionnaires were returned (caregivers 82.5%, adolescents 17.5%). A mean of 6.2 ± 2.4 (out of 11) questions were correctly answered. Those who had tertiary education fared better than those who did not (36.4% vs. 17.2% scoring above the mean, p = 0.001). Age, gender, history of previous imaging and imaging performed during the visit did not affect the score. Two-thirds of the participants did not associate medical radiation with any negative lifetime risk of cancers or know that different scans entailed differing amounts of radiation. Most were unaware that the radiation dose in medical imaging is adjusted to a child's size. Among patients who underwent imaging, 90.1% received explanations on the need for scans, and 26.5% were informed of the risks involved. Almost all participants wished to be informed of imaging indications and risks. More preferred to learn this from physicians (75.6%) or technicians (51.6%) rather than through educational pamphlets (34.4%) or Internet resources (22.9%).
conclusionAwareness regarding medical radiation needs to be improved in our patient population. A mismatch exists between caregiver expectations and the actual procedure of disclosure of the risk associated with radiation.
Indexed as
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.