J R Tugwell1, N Goulden2, P Mullins3. 1. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB), North Wales, Ysbyty Gwynedd, Penrhosgarnedd Road, Bangor LL57 2PW, Wales, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Jenna.R.Allsup@wales.nhs.uk. 2. NWORTH CTU - North Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health, Y Wern, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2PZ, United Kingdom. 3. Bangor University, School of Psychology, Adeilad Brigantia, Penrallt Road, Gwynedd LL57 2AS, United Kingdom.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Patients undergoing MRI often experience anxiety prior and during scanning. The aim of this study was to explore two simple, cost-effective and easily implemented interventions to reduce anxiety pre MRI scanning. METHODS:Seventy four patients attending first time for a MRI head, spine or cardiac scan were randomised into one of three interventions: video demonstration; telephone conversation with a radiographer; or routine MRI preparation (appointment letter). The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaire was used to measure anxiety levels both pre and post intervention. Motion artefacts were visually assessed by 2 observers and a post scan survey was used to capture patient's satisfaction. RESULTS: ANCOVA revealed a significant reduction of anxiety in the video group (F = 13.664, p = 0.001), and also in the telephone group (F = 6.443, p = 0.015) compared to control patients. No significant difference was found between the two interventions (F = 0.665, p = 0.419). No difference was seen in motion artefacts between all three groups (Chi2 = 2.363 (p = 0.359) for observer 1 and Chi2 = 1.280 (p = 0.865) for observer 2). Fifty one percent (51.4%) of patients admitted to being anxious, with the possible outcome of the MRI results being the most common (18.9%) reason given for anxiety. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that either of the interventions used can significantly reduce pre-MRI anxiety, with the video performing slightly better than the phone call intervention. Importantly, the routine appointment letter did not contain enough information to satisfy most patients, which argues strongly for a change in current practice. Crown
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION:Patients undergoing MRI often experience anxiety prior and during scanning. The aim of this study was to explore two simple, cost-effective and easily implemented interventions to reduce anxiety pre MRI scanning. METHODS: Seventy four patients attending first time for a MRI head, spine or cardiac scan were randomised into one of three interventions: video demonstration; telephone conversation with a radiographer; or routine MRI preparation (appointment letter). The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaire was used to measure anxiety levels both pre and post intervention. Motion artefacts were visually assessed by 2 observers and a post scan survey was used to capture patient's satisfaction. RESULTS: ANCOVA revealed a significant reduction of anxiety in the video group (F = 13.664, p = 0.001), and also in the telephone group (F = 6.443, p = 0.015) compared to control patients. No significant difference was found between the two interventions (F = 0.665, p = 0.419). No difference was seen in motion artefacts between all three groups (Chi2 = 2.363 (p = 0.359) for observer 1 and Chi2 = 1.280 (p = 0.865) for observer 2). Fifty one percent (51.4%) of patients admitted to being anxious, with the possible outcome of the MRI results being the most common (18.9%) reason given for anxiety. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that either of the interventions used can significantly reduce pre-MRI anxiety, with the video performing slightly better than the phone call intervention. Importantly, the routine appointment letter did not contain enough information to satisfy most patients, which argues strongly for a change in current practice. Crown
Authors: Mariusz Krej; Tomasz Osuch; Alicja Anuszkiewicz; Stanisław Stopinski; Krzysztof Anders; Krzysztof Matuk; Andrzej Weigl; Eugeniusz Tarasow; Ryszard Piramidowicz; Lukasz Dziuda Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 3.732
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: Richard K J Brown; Sean Petty; Stephanie O'Malley; Jadranka Stojanovska; Matthew S Davenport; Ella A Kazerooni; Daniel Fessahazion Journal: Tomography Date: 2018-09
Authors: Thomas C Booth; Gerard Thompson; Helen Bulbeck; Florien Boele; Craig Buckley; Jorge Cardoso; Liane Dos Santos Canas; David Jenkinson; Keyoumars Ashkan; Jack Kreindler; Nicky Huskens; Aysha Luis; Catherine McBain; Samantha J Mills; Marc Modat; Nick Morley; Caroline Murphy; Sebastian Ourselin; Mark Pennington; James Powell; David Summers; Adam D Waldman; Colin Watts; Matthew Williams; Robin Grant; Michael D Jenkinson Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Hugo Hall; Yasmin Dhuga; Caroline Yan Zheng; Gemma Clunie; Elizabeth Joyce; Helen McNair; Alison H McGregor Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kun Qian; Tomoki Arichi; Anthony Price; Sofia Dall'Orso; Jonathan Eden; Yohan Noh; Kawal Rhode; Etienne Burdet; Mark Neil; A David Edwards; Joseph V Hajnal Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Caroline J Charpentier; Paul Faulkner; Eva R Pool; Verena Ly; Marieke S Tollenaar; Lisa M Kluen; Aniek Fransen; Yumeya Yamamori; Níall Lally; Anahit Mkrtchian; Vincent Valton; Quentin J M Huys; Ioannis Sarigiannidis; Kelly A Morrow; Valentina Krenz; Felix Kalbe; Anna Cremer; Gundula Zerbes; Franziska M Kausche; Nadine Wanke; Alessio Giarrizzo; Erdem Pulcu; Susannah Murphy; Alexander Kaltenboeck; Michael Browning; Lynn K Paul; Roshan Cools; Karin Roelofs; Luiz Pessoa; Catherine J Harmer; Henry W Chase; Christian Grillon; Lars Schwabe; Jonathan P Roiser; Oliver J Robinson; John P O'Doherty Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 3.436