ArticleJournal of healthcare leadership2026
Chest Equivalent Dose as a Symbolic Radiation Communication Tool: Leadership Implications for Nurses' Knowledge, Anxiety, and Risk Attribution.
Article in Journal of healthcare leadership, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Communicating radiation dose to nurses using Sievert-based units may be difficult to interpret and may heighten anxiety. Chest Equivalent Dose (CED) is a symbolic approach that anchors dose information to a familiar chest imaging reference frame. Objective: To compare the effects of Chest Equivalent Dose (CED) versus conventional Sievert-based dose communication on nurses' radiation knowledge, radiation anxiety, and radiation-related feelings/experiences. Methods: A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest comparative study was conducted among nurses in Jordan. Participants received Sievert-based education (n=40) or CED-based education (n=31). Radiation knowledge (RKQ), radiation anxiety (RAQ), and radiation-related feelings and experiences (RREF) were measured immediately before and after the session. Paired- and independent-samples tests were used, and time effects were explored using mixed-model analyses. Results: Baseline scores did not differ between groups (all p>0.05). In the CED group, RKQ increased from 59.76±8.32 to 79.76±10.16, while RAQ decreased from 57.97±1.33 to 36.74±1.83 and RREF decreased from 77.58±2.87 to 47.12±2.90 (all p<0.001). In the Sievert group, RKQ was unchanged (56.08±10.89 to 58.32±9.04; p=0.329), with small decreases in RAQ (58.23±1.19 to 56.45±1.58; p<0.001) and RREF (77.67±3.02 to 75.67±3.17; p=0.005). Posttest outcomes favoured CED for RKQ, RAQ, and RREF (all p<0.001). Conclusion: CED-based symbolic dose communication produced larger improvements in knowledge and larger reductions in anxiety and radiation-related experiences than Sievert-based education.
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.