Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35810310›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

The value of referral information and assessment - a cross sectional study of radiographers' perceptions.

Catherine Chilute Chilanga, Hilde Merete Olerud, Kristin Bakke Lysdahl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Catherine Chilute ChilangaDepartment of Optometry, Radiography and Lighting Design, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway USN, Pb 235, 3603, Kongsberg, Norway. Catherine.Chilanga@usn.no.
Hilde Merete OlerudDepartment of Optometry, Radiography and Lighting Design, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway USN, Pb 235, 3603, Kongsberg, Norway.
Kristin Bakke LysdahlDepartment of Optometry, Radiography and Lighting Design, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway USN, Pb 235, 3603, Kongsberg, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiology professionals are frequently confronted with referrals containing insufficient clinical information, which hinders delivery of safe and quality medical imaging services. There is however lack of knowledge on why and how referral information is important for radiographers in clinical practice. This study explores what purposes referral information is used/ useful for the radiographers, and the benefits of involving them in assessing referrals.

methodsA cross sectional study was conducted of radiographers recruited through the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) networks. A questionnaire was developed and distributed consisting of 5-point Likert scale questions on a) use/usefulness of referral information for 12 listed purposes and b) the benefits of radiographers assessing referrals for 8 possible reasons. The questionnaire was validated using a test-retest reliability analysis. Kappa values ≥0.6 were accepted. SPSS software was used for data analysis and chi-square tests to determine associations between using referral information and background variables.

resultsTotal respondents were 279 (n = 233 currently in clinical practice and n = 46 in other positions). The participants in clinical practice ranked high all 12 listed purposes for use of referral information, and all except one received ≥60% 'frequent'/'very frequent' responses. Use for patient identification purposes received the highest score (97% 'frequently'/'very frequently' responses), followed by ensuring imaging of the correct body region (79% 'very frequently' responses). Radiographers not currently working in clinical practice ranked the 'usefulness' of listed items similarly. Significant associations between frequent use of referral information and education level were not observed, and only three items were significantly associated with modality of practice. All items on benefits of radiographers assessing referrals received ≥75% 'agree'/'strongly agree' scores. The items ranked highest were promotes radiographers' professional responsibility and improves collaboration with radiologists and referring clinicians, with 72 and 67% strongly agreed responses, respectively.

conclusionRadiographers use referral information frequently for several purposes. The referral information is needed for justifying and optimising radiological procedures, hence crucial for ensuring patient safety and high-quality services. This further emphasis why radiographers perceive several benefits of being involved in assessing the referral information.

Indexed as

RadiologistsRadiologyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansReferral and ConsultationReproducibility of ResultsHealth services researchPatient safetyRadiology department hospitalReferral and consultation

Identifiers

PMID35810310
PMCPMC9271238

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.