PURPOSE: To quantify the level of knowledge about interventional radiology (IR) among patients referred for an IR procedure and to develop recommendations on how to increase public awareness of IR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Paper surveys were prospectively administered to consecutive patients scheduled to undergo an IR procedure at a community hospital. The study was terminated at the accrual of 100 completed surveys. RESULTS: Totals of 28% and 6% knew generally the job of a diagnostic radiologist and interventional radiologist, respectively, and 6% had heard of the field of IR before their referral (despite 21% having undergone a procedure previously). Before their arrival in the IR department, 87% had not received any information about IR. Three percent, 0%, 4%, 82%, and 82% had heard about uterine artery embolization, radiofrequency ablation, vertebroplasty, biopsy (any type), and angioplasty, respectively. After the procedures, 84% had a clearer view of what interventional radiologists do, but 98% believed that most others did not know what IR was. When asked how best to educate the public about IR, the responses were: unsure (39%), other (19%), pamphlets (12%), information from physicians (9%), television (8%), and Internet (7%). Overall, the mean satisfaction rate was 8.8 (with 0 representing the minimum and 10 representing the maximum), and 97% would choose IR over surgery for future treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These data quantify and strongly support the views that (1) even among patients specifically referred to IR for a procedure, the majority of people are unaware of what the field is or may offer; and (2) most patients were satisfied with their IR experience. Six results-based recommendations are made to increase public awareness about IR.
PURPOSE: To quantify the level of knowledge about interventional radiology (IR) among patients referred for an IR procedure and to develop recommendations on how to increase public awareness of IR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Paper surveys were prospectively administered to consecutive patients scheduled to undergo an IR procedure at a community hospital. The study was terminated at the accrual of 100 completed surveys. RESULTS: Totals of 28% and 6% knew generally the job of a diagnostic radiologist and interventional radiologist, respectively, and 6% had heard of the field of IR before their referral (despite 21% having undergone a procedure previously). Before their arrival in the IR department, 87% had not received any information about IR. Three percent, 0%, 4%, 82%, and 82% had heard about uterine artery embolization, radiofrequency ablation, vertebroplasty, biopsy (any type), and angioplasty, respectively. After the procedures, 84% had a clearer view of what interventional radiologists do, but 98% believed that most others did not know what IR was. When asked how best to educate the public about IR, the responses were: unsure (39%), other (19%), pamphlets (12%), information from physicians (9%), television (8%), and Internet (7%). Overall, the mean satisfaction rate was 8.8 (with 0 representing the minimum and 10 representing the maximum), and 97% would choose IR over surgery for future treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These data quantify and strongly support the views that (1) even among patients specifically referred to IR for a procedure, the majority of people are unaware of what the field is or may offer; and (2) most patients were satisfied with their IR experience. Six results-based recommendations are made to increase public awareness about IR.