ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2024
Quantitative stakeholder-driven assessment of radiation protection issues via a PIANOFORTE online survey.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To enhance stakeholder engagement and foster the inclusion of interests of citizens in radiation protection research, a comprehensive online survey was developed within the framework of the European Partnership PIANOFORTE. This survey was performed in 2022 and presented an opportunity for a wide range of stakeholders to voice their opinions on research priorities in radiation protection for the foreseeable future. Simultaneously, it delved into pertinent issues surrounding general radiation protection. The PIANOFORTE e-survey was conducted in the English language, accommodating a diverse range of participants. Overall, 440 respondents provided their insights and feedback, representing a broad geographical reach encompassing 29 European countries, as well as Canada, China, Colombia, India, and the United States. To assess the outcomes, the Positive Matrix Factorization numerical model was applied, in addition to qualitative and quantitative assessment of individual responses, enabling the discernment of four distinct stakeholder groups with varying attitudes. While the questionnaire may not fully represent all stakeholders due to the limited respondent pool, it is noteworthy that approximately 70% of the participants were newcomers to comparable surveys, demonstrating a proactive attitude, a strong willingness to collaborate and the necessity to continuously engage with stakeholder groups. Among the individual respondents, distinct opinions emerged particularly regarding health effects of radiation exposure, medical use of radiation, radiation protection of workers and the public, as well as emergency and recovery preparedness and response. In cluster analysis, none of the identified groups had clear preferences concerning the prioritization of future radiation protection research topics.
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.