OBJECTIVE: To investigate the level of psychological burden experienced by patients undergoing positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI scanning compared with PET/CT. METHODS: 100 adult patients referred for PET/CT and underwent PET/MRI scanning were eligible. Initial state, psychological burden of PET/CT and PET/MRI, scan satisfaction and preference were assessed using a purpose-designed questionnaire, comprising 61 five-point Likert scale questions and a three-point tick box question indicating preference between PET/CT and PET/MRI. State anxiety was assessed using the state portion of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests compared psychological burden experienced by participants following PET/CT and PET/MRI scan. RESULTS: A greater level of psychological burden was experienced by patients during PET/MRI than PET/CT p ≤ 0.001, consistent with patients' preference for PET/CT over PET/MRI (p = 0.013). There was a significant relationship between PET/CT psychological burden and initial state (r = 0.386, p ≤ 0.001). No significant relationship was identified between Initial state and psychological burden of PET MRI (r = -0.089; p = 217). There was a significant relationship between psychological burden of PET/CT and PET/MRI (r = 0.354; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients' experience increased psychological burden during PET/MRI compared with PET/CT. Previous scanning experiences and patients' interactions prior to and during PET/MRI improved patient satisfaction. Interventions could be implemented to improve imaging outcome. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides evidence for the increased psychological burden of PET/MRI compared with PET/CT, and that people prefer the PET/CT procedure. We have shown that the patients who expressed a preference for PET/MRI demonstrated significantly lower psychological burden for that procedure than those that preferred PET/CT, which indicates that the benefit of reduced psychological burden could be facilitated by an appropriate intervention.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the level of psychological burden experienced by patients undergoing positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI scanning compared with PET/CT. METHODS: 100 adult patients referred for PET/CT and underwent PET/MRI scanning were eligible. Initial state, psychological burden of PET/CT and PET/MRI, scan satisfaction and preference were assessed using a purpose-designed questionnaire, comprising 61 five-point Likert scale questions and a three-point tick box question indicating preference between PET/CT and PET/MRI. State anxiety was assessed using the state portion of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests compared psychological burden experienced by participants following PET/CT and PET/MRI scan. RESULTS: A greater level of psychological burden was experienced by patients during PET/MRI than PET/CT p ≤ 0.001, consistent with patients' preference for PET/CT over PET/MRI (p = 0.013). There was a significant relationship between PET/CT psychological burden and initial state (r = 0.386, p ≤ 0.001). No significant relationship was identified between Initial state and psychological burden of PET MRI (r = -0.089; p = 217). There was a significant relationship between psychological burden of PET/CT and PET/MRI (r = 0.354; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION:Patients' experience increased psychological burden during PET/MRI compared with PET/CT. Previous scanning experiences and patients' interactions prior to and during PET/MRI improved patient satisfaction. Interventions could be implemented to improve imaging outcome. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides evidence for the increased psychological burden of PET/MRI compared with PET/CT, and that people prefer the PET/CT procedure. We have shown that the patients who expressed a preference for PET/MRI demonstrated significantly lower psychological burden for that procedure than those that preferred PET/CT, which indicates that the benefit of reduced psychological burden could be facilitated by an appropriate intervention.
Authors: R Nozzolillo; P Ercolani; A Giovagnoni; E De Nigris; N Barbini; L Mariani; B Nardi; P Cotani; G F Marchesi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 1991-05 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: William D Middleton; William T Payne; Sharlene A Teefey; Charles F Hildebolt; David A Rubin; Ken Yamaguchi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Esther Bastiaannet; Josette E Hoekstra-Weebers; Anne Brecht Francken; Piet L Jager; Eric J van der Jagt; Harald J Hoekstra Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Stuart A Taylor; Susan Mallett; Anne Miles; Stephen Morris; Laura Quinn; Caroline S Clarke; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam Janes; Dow-Mu Koh; Alison Morton; Neal Navani; Alfred Oliver; Anwar Padhani; Shonit Punwani; Andrea Rockall; Steve Halligan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Felix Nensa; E Tezgah; K Schweins; J Goebel; P Heusch; K Nassenstein; T Schlosser; T D Poeppel Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ana Monteiro Grilo; Ana Catarina Ferreira; Marta Pedro Ramos; Elisabete Carolino; Ana Filipa Pires; Lina Vieira Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-07-05
Authors: Ruth Ec Evans; Stuart A Taylor; Sandra Beare; Steve Halligan; Alison Morton; Alf Oliver; Andrea Rockall; Anne Miles Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Anne Miles; Gauraang Bhatnagar; Steve Halligan; Arun Gupta; Damian Tolan; Ian Zealley; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Anne Miles; Ruth Ec Evans; Steve Halligan; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam M Janes; Neal Navani; Alfred Oliver; Alison Morton; Steve Morris; Andrea Rockall; Stuart A Taylor Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 1.667