Complete written/oral information about dose exposure in CT: is it really useful to guarantee the patients’ awareness about radiation risks?

Federica Vernuccio, Sergio Salerno, Domenica Matranga, Chiara Tudisca, Cosimo Nardi, Stefano Colagrande, Valeria Selvi, Ambra Di Piazza

Risultato della ricerca: Article

3 Citazioni (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims and objectives: According to the European directive 2013/59/Euratom, starting from February 2018, the information relating to patient exposure will be part of computed tomography (CT) reports, but the impact of this information on patients has not been deeply evaluated. Aim of our study was to evaluate patients’ perception of radiation exposure related to routine CT and their understanding after communication of their dose exposure. Materials and methods: A survey, investigating patient’s knowledge of radiation dose, was given to all adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing a CT examination both before and after CT scan. The first survey was the same for all patients. After CT scan, a second questionnaire was administered (after receiving the CT dose bill report and medical written and/or explanation about ionizing radiation risk). Results of the pre- and post-CT questionnaires responses were compared according to demographics characteristics and among the four post-CT groups. Results: For some questions, statistically significant differences were found between the two centres. Seventy per cent of the patients answered that the presence of CT parameters in the report is considered useful. Even if not always statistically significant there was a slight increase in awareness of ionizing radiation risk comparing the pre- and post-CT surveys. The group that had both written and oral explanations had a better comprehension of CT dose bill (group III vs. I, p = 0.002). Conclusion: The way of communication of ionizing radiation risks did not affect the results of the post-CT survey. Indeed, the interest in the topic did not rise in the post-CT survey in any of the group. Adequate information about ionizing radiation risks provided together with dose exposure information may be useful. However, there is not a standardized better way of communicating information on ionizing radiation risks due to CT.
Lingua originaleEnglish
pagine (da-a)788-798
Numero di pagine11
RivistaDefault journal
Volume123
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2018

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cita questo

@article{9200499e77ce48778e7bae56f4c7a942,
title = "Complete written/oral information about dose exposure in CT: is it really useful to guarantee the patients’ awareness about radiation risks?",
abstract = "Aims and objectives: According to the European directive 2013/59/Euratom, starting from February 2018, the information relating to patient exposure will be part of computed tomography (CT) reports, but the impact of this information on patients has not been deeply evaluated. Aim of our study was to evaluate patients’ perception of radiation exposure related to routine CT and their understanding after communication of their dose exposure. Materials and methods: A survey, investigating patient’s knowledge of radiation dose, was given to all adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing a CT examination both before and after CT scan. The first survey was the same for all patients. After CT scan, a second questionnaire was administered (after receiving the CT dose bill report and medical written and/or explanation about ionizing radiation risk). Results of the pre- and post-CT questionnaires responses were compared according to demographics characteristics and among the four post-CT groups. Results: For some questions, statistically significant differences were found between the two centres. Seventy per cent of the patients answered that the presence of CT parameters in the report is considered useful. Even if not always statistically significant there was a slight increase in awareness of ionizing radiation risk comparing the pre- and post-CT surveys. The group that had both written and oral explanations had a better comprehension of CT dose bill (group III vs. I, p = 0.002). Conclusion: The way of communication of ionizing radiation risks did not affect the results of the post-CT survey. Indeed, the interest in the topic did not rise in the post-CT survey in any of the group. Adequate information about ionizing radiation risks provided together with dose exposure information may be useful. However, there is not a standardized better way of communicating information on ionizing radiation risks due to CT.",
keywords = "Computed tomography; Dose bill; Ionizing radiation risk; Questionnaire; Radiation dose; Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging",
author = "Federica Vernuccio and Sergio Salerno and Domenica Matranga and Chiara Tudisca and Cosimo Nardi and Stefano Colagrande and Valeria Selvi and {Di Piazza}, Ambra",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
volume = "123",
pages = "788--798",
journal = "Default journal",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Complete written/oral information about dose exposure in CT: is it really useful to guarantee the patients’ awareness about radiation risks?

AU - Vernuccio, Federica

AU - Salerno, Sergio

AU - Matranga, Domenica

AU - Tudisca, Chiara

AU - Nardi, Cosimo

AU - Colagrande, Stefano

AU - Selvi, Valeria

AU - Di Piazza, Ambra

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Aims and objectives: According to the European directive 2013/59/Euratom, starting from February 2018, the information relating to patient exposure will be part of computed tomography (CT) reports, but the impact of this information on patients has not been deeply evaluated. Aim of our study was to evaluate patients’ perception of radiation exposure related to routine CT and their understanding after communication of their dose exposure. Materials and methods: A survey, investigating patient’s knowledge of radiation dose, was given to all adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing a CT examination both before and after CT scan. The first survey was the same for all patients. After CT scan, a second questionnaire was administered (after receiving the CT dose bill report and medical written and/or explanation about ionizing radiation risk). Results of the pre- and post-CT questionnaires responses were compared according to demographics characteristics and among the four post-CT groups. Results: For some questions, statistically significant differences were found between the two centres. Seventy per cent of the patients answered that the presence of CT parameters in the report is considered useful. Even if not always statistically significant there was a slight increase in awareness of ionizing radiation risk comparing the pre- and post-CT surveys. The group that had both written and oral explanations had a better comprehension of CT dose bill (group III vs. I, p = 0.002). Conclusion: The way of communication of ionizing radiation risks did not affect the results of the post-CT survey. Indeed, the interest in the topic did not rise in the post-CT survey in any of the group. Adequate information about ionizing radiation risks provided together with dose exposure information may be useful. However, there is not a standardized better way of communicating information on ionizing radiation risks due to CT.

AB - Aims and objectives: According to the European directive 2013/59/Euratom, starting from February 2018, the information relating to patient exposure will be part of computed tomography (CT) reports, but the impact of this information on patients has not been deeply evaluated. Aim of our study was to evaluate patients’ perception of radiation exposure related to routine CT and their understanding after communication of their dose exposure. Materials and methods: A survey, investigating patient’s knowledge of radiation dose, was given to all adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing a CT examination both before and after CT scan. The first survey was the same for all patients. After CT scan, a second questionnaire was administered (after receiving the CT dose bill report and medical written and/or explanation about ionizing radiation risk). Results of the pre- and post-CT questionnaires responses were compared according to demographics characteristics and among the four post-CT groups. Results: For some questions, statistically significant differences were found between the two centres. Seventy per cent of the patients answered that the presence of CT parameters in the report is considered useful. Even if not always statistically significant there was a slight increase in awareness of ionizing radiation risk comparing the pre- and post-CT surveys. The group that had both written and oral explanations had a better comprehension of CT dose bill (group III vs. I, p = 0.002). Conclusion: The way of communication of ionizing radiation risks did not affect the results of the post-CT survey. Indeed, the interest in the topic did not rise in the post-CT survey in any of the group. Adequate information about ionizing radiation risks provided together with dose exposure information may be useful. However, there is not a standardized better way of communicating information on ionizing radiation risks due to CT.

KW - Computed tomography; Dose bill; Ionizing radiation risk; Questionnaire; Radiation dose; Radiology

KW - Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/336266

UR - http://link.springer.com/journal/11547

M3 - Article

VL - 123

SP - 788

EP - 798

JO - Default journal

JF - Default journal

ER -