Patients' Experience to MRI Examinations-A Systematic Qualitative Review With Meta-Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Patients often mention distress, anxiety, or claustrophobia related to MRI, resulting in no-shows, disturbances of the workflow, and lasting psychological effects. Patients' experience varies and is moderated by socio-demographic aspects alongside the clinical condition. While qualitative studies help understand individuals' experiences, to date a systematic review and aggregation of MRI individuals' experience is lacking. PURPOSE: To investigate how adult patients experience MRI, and the characterizing factors. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review with meta-aggregation and meta-synthesis. POPULATION: 220 patients' reported experience of adults undergoing clinical MRI and 144 quotes from eight qualitative studies. ASSESSMENT: Systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. For quality appraisal, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools were used. Convergent segregated approach was undertaken. DATA ANALYSIS: Participant recruitment, setting of exploration, type of interview, and analysis extracted through Joana Briggs Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI QARI) tool. Meta-synthesis was supported by a concept map. For meta-aggregation, direct patient quotes were extracted, findings grouped, themes and characterizing factors at each stage abstracted, and categories coded in two cycles. Frequency of statements was quantified. Interviews' raw data unavailability impeded computer-aided analysis. RESULTS: Eight articles out of 12,755 initial studies, 220 patients, were included. Meta-aggregation of 144 patient quotes answered: (1) experiences before, at the scanning table, during, and after an MRI, (2) differences based on clinical condition, and (3) characterizing factors, including coping strategies, look-and-feel of medical technology, interaction with professionals, and information. Seven publications lack participants' health literacy level, occupation, and eight studies lack developmental conditions, ethnicity, or country of origin. Six studies were conducted in university hospitals. DATA CONCLUSION: Aggregation of patients' quotes provide a foundational description of adult patients' MRI experience across the stages of an MRI process. Insufficient raw data of individual quotes and limited socio-demographic diversity may constrain the understanding of individual experience and characterizing factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

The Psychological, Physiological, and Behavioral Responses of Patients to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: MRI is generally well-tolerated although it may induce physiological stress responses and anxiety in patients. PURPOSE: Investigate the psychological, physiological, and behavioral responses of patients to MRI, their evolution over time, and influencing factors. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review with meta-analysis. POPULATION: 181,371 adult patients from 44 studies undergoing clinical MRI. ASSESSMENT: Pubmed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus were systematically searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality appraisal was conducted with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Meta-analysis was conducted via Meta-Essentials workbooks when five studies were available for an outcome. Psychological and behavioral outcomes could be analyzed. Psychological outcomes were anxiety (State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory, STAI-S; 37) and willingness to undergo MRI again. Behavioral outcomes included unexpected behaviors: No shows, sedation, failed scans, and motion artifacts. Year of publication, sex, age, and positioning were examined as moderators. STATISTICAL TESTS: Meta-analysis, Hedge's g. A P value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Of 12,755 initial studies, 104 studies were included in methodological review and 44 (181,371 patients) in meta-analysis. Anxiety did not significantly reduce from pre- to post-MRI (Hedge's g = -0.20, P = 0.051). Pooled values of STAI-S (37) were 44.93 (pre-MRI) and 40.36 (post-MRI). Of all patients, 3.9% reported unwillingness to undergo MRI again. Pooled prevalence of unexpected patient behavior was 11.4%; rates for singular behaviors were: Failed scans, 2.1%; no-shows, 11.5%; sedation, 3.3%; motion artifacts, 12.2%. Year of publication was not a significant moderator (all P > 0.169); that is, the patients' response was not improved in recent vs. older studies. Meta-analysis of physiological responses was not feasible since preconditions were not met for any outcome. DATA CONCLUSION: Advancements of MRI technology alone may not be sufficient to eliminate anxiety in patients undergoing MRI and related unexpected behaviors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Effects of video-based patient preparation for MRI on clinical processes and patient experience.

PURPOSE: To determine whether video-based informational or relaxational preparation reduces the number of unexpected patient-related events and scan duration more efficiently, and to assess how patients evaluate the interventions. METHODS: We randomized 142 adult patients (mean age: 48 ± 16 years) to three groups. The control group (n = 48, 33.8 %) received standard care. The intervention groups watched an informational (n = 50, 35.2 %) or relaxational (n = 44, 31.0 %) video while awaiting their MRI examination. We recorded scan duration, number of motion artifacts/sequence repetitions, and patient-related incidents (e.g., interruptions, premature termination). Subjective evaluation of the interventions was provided by the patients after MRI completion. RESULTS: Mean scan duration for the control, relaxation, and information group was 39.38 ± 16.62 min, 32.59 ± 11.67 min, and 34.54 ± 11.91 min. Compared to the control group, scan duration was significantly shorter in the relaxation, but not in the information group (relaxation vs control: p =.019; information vs control: p =.082). The information and relaxation group did not differ significantly (p =.704). In 35 (24.6 %) patients, one or more sequences were repeated; incidents occurred in six (4.2 %) patients. Neither the frequency of repeated sequences nor incidents differed between the groups (all p >.239). Patients evaluated both videos very positively; the information video received even better evaluations (all p <.027). CONCLUSION: Additional preparation, especially information, is perceived very positively by patients and at least relaxational preparation may have a positive impact on clinical operations.

Preparing patients according to their individual coping style improves patient experience of magnetic resonance imaging.

MRI-related anxiety is present in 30% of patients and may evoke motion artifacts/failed scans, which impair clinical efficiency. It is unclear how patient anxiety can be countered most effectively. Habitual preferences for coping with stressful situations by focusing or distracting one's attention thereof (coping style) may play a key role in this context. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two patient-preparation videos with informational vs. relaxational content and to determine whether the fit between content and coping style affects effectivity. The sample consisted of 142 patients (M = 48.31 ± 15.81 years). Key outcomes were anxiety, and cortisol as a physiological stress marker. When not considering coping style, neither intervention improved the patients' reaction; only patient preparation that matched the patients' coping style was associated with an earlier reduction of anxiety. This suggests that considering individual preferences for patient preparation may be more effective than a one-size-fits-all approach.

MRI as a Stressor: The Psychological and Physiological Response of Patients to MRI, Influencing Factors, and Consequences.

OBJECTIVE: Despite being noninvasive and painless, MRI is recurrently associated with stress and anxiety in patients. This adversely affects patient experience and may be associated with negative outcomes for the health care provider. This study examined the psychological and physiological response of patients to MRI and how these response levels relate, the role of different potentially influencing factors, and the relation to procedural outcomes. METHODS: Data of 96 patients (mean 48.77 ± 15.11 years; 61.5% female) were included. The patients' psychological or physiological response was assessed before and after MRI via questionnaires on anxiety, strain, agitation, and mood and salivary α-amylase, and cortisol. Data on potentially influencing factors and outcomes of the clinical workflow were collected via questionnaires. RESULTS: We observed significant improvements of all psychological measures from pre- to post-MRI (all P < .001) but not of the physiological stress markers (all P > .258). The psychological response correlated with levels of cortisol but not α-amylase. The valence of previous MRI experiences was particularly predictive of the patients' reaction. Stress and anxiety in patients significantly predicted the probability of scan repetitions (Nagelkerke's R2 = .31, P = .011) and scan duration (adjusted R2 = .22, P < .001). CONCLUSION: These findings imply that various factors contribute to the patients' response to MRI. Stress and anxiety in patients, in turn, may impact the clinical workflow. Therefore, these factors should be considered in the medical treatment to provide both a positive patient experience and smooth clinical workflows.