Christine E Ghatan1, Magali Fassiotto2, Joyce P Jacobsen3, Daniel Y Sze4, Nishita Kothary5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Division of Interventional Radiology, 300 Pasteur Drive, H3630, Stanford, CA 94305-5642; Department of Radiology, and Office of Faculty Development and Diversity, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, H3630, Stanford, CA 94305-5642. 3. Public Affairs Center, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut. 4. Division of Interventional Radiology, 300 Pasteur Drive, H3630, Stanford, CA 94305-5642. 5. Division of Interventional Radiology, 300 Pasteur Drive, H3630, Stanford, CA 94305-5642. Electronic address: kothary@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess attitudes of interventional radiologists toward occupational ionizing radiation exposure in pregnancy and to survey practice patterns and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 34-question anonymous online survey on attitudes and work practices toward interventional radiologists who worked during pregnancy was sent to active SIR members, including 582 women. RESULTS: There were 534 (10%) respondents, including 142 women and 363 men. Among respondents, men were statistically older than women (P < .001) and had practiced interventional radiology (IR) longer (P < .001). Of female interventional radiologists, 55% had worked during pregnancy and reported no specific mutagenic events in their offspring. Spontaneous abortions (11%) and use of reproductive technology (17%) matched that of women with similar age and socioeconomic background. Although more women changed their work practice because of concerns of occupational exposure than men (23% vs 13%), this change was largely limited to the duration of a pregnancy. Among pregnant interventional radiologists, 4 (6%) completely abstained from performing fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGIs), whereas 31 (46%) continued to spend > 80% of their work week doing FGIs with additional protection. Perceptions of impact of pregnancy on daytime work redistribution varied significantly with gender (P < .001); however, perceptions regarding impact of pregnancy on on-call hours, distribution of complex cases, and need to hire for temporary coverage were similar between the genders. CONCLUSIONS: Most pregnant interventional radiologists continue to practice IR while pregnant. Pregnancy and fetal outcomes parallel that of the general population when matched for demographics. However, perceptions of impact of pregnancy on work lives of colleagues vary notably.
PURPOSE: To assess attitudes of interventional radiologists toward occupational ionizing radiation exposure in pregnancy and to survey practice patterns and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 34-question anonymous online survey on attitudes and work practices toward interventional radiologists who worked during pregnancy was sent to active SIR members, including 582 women. RESULTS: There were 534 (10%) respondents, including 142 women and 363 men. Among respondents, men were statistically older than women (P < .001) and had practiced interventional radiology (IR) longer (P < .001). Of female interventional radiologists, 55% had worked during pregnancy and reported no specific mutagenic events in their offspring. Spontaneous abortions (11%) and use of reproductive technology (17%) matched that of women with similar age and socioeconomic background. Although more women changed their work practice because of concerns of occupational exposure than men (23% vs 13%), this change was largely limited to the duration of a pregnancy. Among pregnant interventional radiologists, 4 (6%) completely abstained from performing fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGIs), whereas 31 (46%) continued to spend > 80% of their work week doing FGIs with additional protection. Perceptions of impact of pregnancy on daytime work redistribution varied significantly with gender (P < .001); however, perceptions regarding impact of pregnancy on on-call hours, distribution of complex cases, and need to hire for temporary coverage were similar between the genders. CONCLUSIONS: Most pregnant interventional radiologists continue to practice IR while pregnant. Pregnancy and fetal outcomes parallel that of the general population when matched for demographics. However, perceptions of impact of pregnancy on work lives of colleagues vary notably.