Sergio Salerno1, Cosimo Nardi2, Chiara Tudisca3, Domenica Matranga4, Federica Vernuccio1, Ambra Di Piazza1, Valeria Selvi2, Stefano Colagrande2. 1. Department of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnology, Section of Radiological Sciences, DIBIMED - University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127, Palermo, Italy. 2. Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy. 3. Department of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnology, Section of Radiological Sciences, DIBIMED - University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127, Palermo, Italy. chiaratudisca@gmail.com. 4. Department of Sciences for Health Promotion and Mother and Child Care "G. D'Alessandro", University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: According to the European directive 2013/59/Euratom, starting from February 2018, the information relating to patient exposure will be part of computed tomography (CT) reports, but the impact of this information on patients has not been deeply evaluated. Aim of our study was to evaluate patients' perception of radiation exposure related to routine CT and their understanding after communication of their dose exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey, investigating patient's knowledge of radiation dose, was given to all adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing a CT examination both before and after CT scan. The first survey was the same for all patients. After CT scan, a second questionnaire was administered (after receiving the CT dose bill report and medical written and/or explanation about ionizing radiation risk). Results of the pre- and post-CT questionnaires responses were compared according to demographics characteristics and among the four post-CT groups. RESULTS: For some questions, statistically significant differences were found between the two centres. Seventy per cent of the patients answered that the presence of CT parameters in the report is considered useful. Even if not always statistically significant there was a slight increase in awareness of ionizing radiation risk comparing the pre- and post-CT surveys. The group that had both written and oral explanations had a better comprehension of CT dose bill (group III vs. I, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The way of communication of ionizing radiation risks did not affect the results of the post-CT survey. Indeed, the interest in the topic did not rise in the post-CT survey in any of the group. Adequate information about ionizing radiation risks provided together with dose exposure information may be useful. However, there is not a standardized better way of communicating information on ionizing radiation risks due to CT.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: According to the European directive 2013/59/Euratom, starting from February 2018, the information relating to patient exposure will be part of computed tomography (CT) reports, but the impact of this information on patients has not been deeply evaluated. Aim of our study was to evaluate patients' perception of radiation exposure related to routine CT and their understanding after communication of their dose exposure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey, investigating patient's knowledge of radiation dose, was given to all adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing a CT examination both before and after CT scan. The first survey was the same for all patients. After CT scan, a second questionnaire was administered (after receiving the CT dose bill report and medical written and/or explanation about ionizing radiation risk). Results of the pre- and post-CT questionnaires responses were compared according to demographics characteristics and among the four post-CT groups. RESULTS: For some questions, statistically significant differences were found between the two centres. Seventy per cent of the patients answered that the presence of CT parameters in the report is considered useful. Even if not always statistically significant there was a slight increase in awareness of ionizing radiation risk comparing the pre- and post-CT surveys. The group that had both written and oral explanations had a better comprehension of CT dose bill (group III vs. I, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The way of communication of ionizing radiation risks did not affect the results of the post-CT survey. Indeed, the interest in the topic did not rise in the post-CT survey in any of the group. Adequate information about ionizing radiation risks provided together with dose exposure information may be useful. However, there is not a standardized better way of communicating information on ionizing radiation risks due to CT.
Authors: Sergio Salerno; Maurizio Marrale; Claudia Geraci; Giuseppe Caruso; Giuseppe Lo Re; Antonio Lo Casto; Massimo Midiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-09-19 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: F Ria; A Bergantin; A Vai; P Bonfanti; A S Martinotti; I Redaelli; M Invernizzi; G Pedrinelli; G Bernini; S Papa; E Samei Journal: Phys Med Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Cosimo Nardi; Luisa De Falco; Giuseppe Caracchini; Linda Calistri; Laura Mercatelli; Stefano Cristin; Chiara Lorini; Edoardo Cavigli; Nicholas Landini; Martina Orlandi; Christian Carulli; Vittorio Miele Journal: Jpn J Radiol Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 2.374