For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
2
views
27
references
 Top references
cited by
3
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      324
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Knowledge of radiation protection among radiology professionals and students: A medical college-based study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • •

            The overall knowledge of radiation protection among radiology professional and students was adequate.

          • •

            The knowledge of radiation protection among diploma graduate was inadequate.

          • •

            Radiation protection law should be promulgated as soon as possible in Nepal.

          • •

            This is the first study to perform principal component analysis in the research study of its kind.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND

          Radiation protection is the core of radiography for safe radiation-based imaging practice. This study aims to determine the knowledge of radiation protection among radiology professionals and students in a medical college of Nepal.

          MATERIAL AND METHODS

          A questionnaire survey was carried out among 35 radiology staff and students at Universal College of Medical Sciences (UCMS), Bhairahawa, Nepal. The questionnaire survey consisted of socio-demographic variables and 17 questions, 3 questions were related to general information regarding training, knowledge, and experience and the remaining 14 multiple choice questions (MCQ) were related to radiation protection. Data were analyzed in SPSS Statistics software, version 27. The p-value was set at 5% level of significance. Nonparametric tests were applied since the data did not follow normal distribution. The knowledge score were categorized into lesser than 60 % inadequate, 60–80 % adequate and greater than or equal to 80 % excellent.

          RESULTS

          Out of total 35 participants, 28 were male and 7 were female with mean age 26.09 ± 7.18 years, range 18–54. The average radiation level of awareness was 9.6 (68.57 %), which was adequate, maximum 13 and minimum 4. There was not statistical significance of knowledge score by gender, age groups, work experience and studentship. Taking academic qualification, the level of knowledge of diploma graduates was inadequate 7.76 (55.42 %), and lower than other higher academic qualifications.

          CONCLUSIONS

          Adequate radiation protection course materials and training should be introduced for diploma graduates. Continuing professional education (CME) should be organized regularly. Moreover, radiation protection law is a must in Nepal now.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy.

          W Hendee, Timothy O'Connor (2012)
          During the past few years, several articles have appeared in the scientific literature that predict thousands of cancers and cancer deaths per year in the U.S. population caused by medical imaging procedures that use ionizing radiation. These predictions are computed by multiplying small and highly speculative risk factors by large populations of patients to yield impressive numbers of "cancer victims." The risk factors are acquired from the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report without attention to the caveats about their use presented in the BEIR VII report. The principal data source for the risk factors is the ongoing study of survivors of the Japanese atomic explosions, a population of individuals that is greatly different from patients undergoing imaging procedures. For the purpose of risk estimation, doses to patients are converted to effective doses, even though the International Commission on Radiological Protection warns against the use of effective dose for epidemiologic studies or for estimation of individual risks. To extrapolate cancer incidence to doses of a few millisieverts from data greater than 100 mSv, a linear no-threshold model is used, even though substantial radiobiological and human exposure data imply that it is not an appropriate model. The predictions of cancers and cancer deaths are sensationalized in electronic and print public media, resulting in anxiety and fear about medical imaging among patients and parents. Not infrequently, patients are anxious about a scheduled imaging procedure because of articles they have read in the public media. In some cases, medical imaging examinations may be delayed or deferred as a consequence, resulting in a much greater risk to patients than that associated with imaging examinations. © RSNA, 2012.
          Article 0 comments Cited 78 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do.

            Richard Wakeford, S D Bouffler, Jonathan Little … (2009)
            Article 0 comments Cited 66 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: some practical issues. Report of an International Atomic Energy Agency Consultation.

              Tero Järvinen, E. Picano, J Malone … (2012)
              The Radiation Protection of Patients Unit of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is concerned about the effectiveness of justification of diagnostic medical exposures. Recent published work and the report of an initial IAEA consultation in the area gave grounds for such concerns. There is a significant level of inappropriate usage, and, in some cases, a poor level of awareness of dose and risk among some key groups involved. This article aims to address this. The IAEA convened a second group of experts in November 2008 to review practical and achievable actions that might lead to more effective justification. This report summarises the matters that this group considered and the outcome of their deliberations. There is a need for improved communication, both within professions and between professionals on one hand, and between professionals and the patients/public on the other. Coupled with this, the issue of consent to imaging procedures was revisited. The need for good evidence-based referral guidelines or criteria of acceptability was emphasised, as was the need for their global adaptation and dissemination. Clinical audit was regarded as a key tool in ensuring that justification becomes an effective, transparent and accountable part of normal radiological practice. In summary, justification would be facilitated by the "3 As": awareness, appropriateness and audit.
              Article 0 comments Cited 42 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Surendra Maharjan
                Kalpana Parajuli
                Suraj Sah
                Upakar Poudel
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Eur J Radiol Open
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Eur J Radiol Open
                Title: European Journal of Radiology Open
                Publisher: Elsevier
                ISSN (Electronic): 2352-0477
                Publication date PMC-release: 22 November 2020
                Publication date Collection: 2020
                Publication date (Electronic): 22 November 2020
                Volume: 7
                Electronic Location Identifier: 100287
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Radiological Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan
                [b ]Department of Biomedical Imaging, Abo Akademi University, Finland
                [c ]Department of Radiology and Imaging, Chirayu National Hospital and Medical Institute Pvt Ltd, Basundhara, Kathmandu, Nepal
                [d ]Department of Radio-diagnosis and Medical Imaging, Universal College of Medical Sciences, Bhairahawa, Lumbini, Nepal
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Radiological Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan. maharjan-surendra@ 123456ed.tmu.ac.jp
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: S2352-0477(20)30076-9 Publisher ID: 100287
                DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2020.100287
                PMC ID: 7691545
                PubMed ID: 33294498
                SO-VID: 73b94667-63c8-4917-8f72-859b3839f8f0
                Copyright © © 2020 The Authors
                License:

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Date received : 6 September 2020
                Date revision received : 29 October 2020
                Date accepted : 1 November 2020
                Categories
                Subject: Article

                Keywords: radiation awareness,radiology,radiography,radiation protection,nepal
                Data availability:
                Keywords: radiation awareness, radiology, radiography, radiation protection, nepal

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content324

                See all similar

                Cited by3

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors348

                See all reference authors