ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Radiographers' perspectives on interactional processes during older persons diagnostic medical imaging encounters: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A case report of system configuration issue in medical imaging due to system upgrade- changes in hardware and software.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWithin a diagnostic medical imaging context, an interaction encompasses communication, physical contact and emotional support. These intricacies are an integral part in achieving a successful medical imaging outcome. An increasing ageing population presents unique challenges and leads to a higher demand for medical imaging services. There is a paucity of literature exploring the specialised knowledge and skills required by radiographers to service optimal person-centred care for elderly patients. The purpose of the study was to explore radiographers' perspectives on interactional processes during older persons diagnostic medical imaging encounters.
methodsThe study used a qualitative exploratory research design with a descriptive approach to gain insights from 12 purposively sampled Australian radiographers, through open-ended interviews conducted online or by telephone. Verbatim transcripts were produced, and a thematic analysis employed until data saturation had been reached.
resultsThe three themes that emerged from the data analysis were: (1) optimising care and communication, (2) expectations and preconceptions and (3) physical and emotional comfort and safety. Generally, the approach to undertaking older persons examinations entailed more adaptive and flexible competencies and skills in comparison to the familiarised routine diagnostic medical imaging encounters with the younger cohort. Radiographers shared aspects on striking a balance between efficiency and proficiency with the elderly patient needs, preferences, values, safety and well-being considerations. This required swift, complex decision-making and judgement calls due to the unpredictable nature of the context in which the elderly person was situated. The result was the adaptation of examination protocols through equipment manipulation, with minimal disruptions to emotional and physical comfort, achieved through interventions and support strategies.
conclusionThe results highlight the many considerations for radiographers during a short clinical interaction. There is optimism in adding value to the elderly persons experience through a complex interactional process. It is anticipated that the identified skills will inform on best practice principles to achieve an elderly person-centred care medical imaging outcome.
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.