Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging.

Importance: Although imaging has become a standard tool of modern medicine, its widespread use has been paralleled by an increasing cumulative radiation dose to patients despite technological advancements and campaigns calling for better awareness and minimization of unnecessary exposures. Objective: To assess patients' knowledge about medical radiation and related risks. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey study of hospitals in Italy was conducted; all patients in waiting rooms for medical imaging procedures before undergoing imaging examinations at 16 teaching and nonteaching hospitals were approached to take the survey. The survey was performed from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey respondents' basic knowledge of ionizing radiation levels and health risks, earlier imaging tests performed, and information and communication about radiation protection issues. Results: Among 3039 patients invited to participate, the response rate was 94.3% (n = 2866). Participants included 1531 women (53.4%); mean (SD) age was 44.9 (17.3) years. Of the 2866 participants, 1529 (53.3%) were aware of the existence of natural sources of ionizing radiation. Mammography (1101 [38.4%]) and magnetic resonance imaging (1231 [43.0%]) were categorized as radiation-based imaging modalities. More than half of the 2866 patients (1579 [55.1%]; P = .03) did not know that chest computed tomography delivers a larger dose of radiation than chest radiography, and only 1499 (52.3%) knew that radiation can be emitted after nuclear medicine examinations (P = .004). A total of 667 patients (23.3%) believed that radiation risks were unrelated to age, 1273 (44.4%) deemed their knowledge about radiation risks inadequate, and 2305 (80.4%) preferred to be informed about radiation risks by medical staff. A better knowledge of radiation issues was associated with receiving information from health care professionals (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.03; P < .001) and having a higher educational level (intermediate vs low: OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.88; P < .001; high vs low: OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.09-3.43; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey suggest that patients undergoing medical imaging procedures have overall limited knowledge about medical radiation. Intervention to achieve better patient awareness of radiation risks related to medical exposures may be beneficial.

Impact of Operators' Height on Individual Radiation Exposure Measurements During Catheter-Based Cardiovascular Interventions.

AIM: This study is aimed to evaluate the impact of an operators' height on personal radiation exposure measurements during cardiovascular interventional procedures. Based upon both clinical data and phantom simulation, a new approach for monitoring an individual's exposure is proposed. METHODS: The clinical component of this study was composed of the operators and staff in a single center full service cardiovascular laboratory being divided into 2 groups based upon their height: group A included all individuals whose height was <165 cm; group B included the individuals >165 cm. All operators wore a standard TLD dosimeter at all times with doses recorded for 12 months. To support these clinical findings, a second investigation was performed utilizing a phantom. Measurements were obtained at 100 and 135 cm from the radiation source during simulation of different cardiovascular interventional procedures. RESULTS: The radiation dose measured from the personal dosimeters identified that Group A, operators <165 cm, had significantly higher doses than those recorded in Group B, operators >165 cm, when compared among individuals performing similar tasks (physicians, technicians, and nurses): 4.55 ± 4.0 (Group A) versus 1.95 ± 1.0 (Group B) mSv (P < 0.01). During procedure simulation with the phantom, the doses measured were similarly significantly higher if measured at 100 cm than at 135 cm from the radiation source. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the height from radiation source does impact the measured dose from an operator worn personal TLD. This was operator specific, consistent thought-out multiple procedures, and confined with phantom measurements.