Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2021 Oct 1;4(10):e2128561.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28561.

Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging

Luca Bastiani  1 , Fabio Paolicchi  2 , Lorenzo Faggioni  2 , Massimo Martinelli  3 , Roberta Gerasia  4 , Chiara Martini  5 , Patrizia Cornacchione  6 , Matteo Ceccarelli  7   8 , Dante Chiappino  9 , Daniele Della Latta  10   11 , Jacopo Negri  12 , Donatella Pertoldi  13 , Donato Negro  14 , Giovanni Nuzzi  15 , Vincenzo Rizzo  16 , Paola Tamburrino  17 , Chiara Pozzessere  18 , Giacomo Aringhieri  2 , Davide Caramella  2
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging

Luca Bastiani et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Erratum in

  • Error in Affiliation.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2141299. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.41299. JAMA Netw Open. 2021. PMID: 34854910 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Importance: Although imaging has become a standard tool of modern medicine, its widespread use has been paralleled by an increasing cumulative radiation dose to patients despite technological advancements and campaigns calling for better awareness and minimization of unnecessary exposures.

Objective: To assess patients' knowledge about medical radiation and related risks.

Design, setting, and participants: A survey study of hospitals in Italy was conducted; all patients in waiting rooms for medical imaging procedures before undergoing imaging examinations at 16 teaching and nonteaching hospitals were approached to take the survey. The survey was performed from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020.

Main outcomes and measures: Survey respondents' basic knowledge of ionizing radiation levels and health risks, earlier imaging tests performed, and information and communication about radiation protection issues.

Results: Among 3039 patients invited to participate, the response rate was 94.3% (n = 2866). Participants included 1531 women (53.4%); mean (SD) age was 44.9 (17.3) years. Of the 2866 participants, 1529 (53.3%) were aware of the existence of natural sources of ionizing radiation. Mammography (1101 [38.4%]) and magnetic resonance imaging (1231 [43.0%]) were categorized as radiation-based imaging modalities. More than half of the 2866 patients (1579 [55.1%]; P = .03) did not know that chest computed tomography delivers a larger dose of radiation than chest radiography, and only 1499 (52.3%) knew that radiation can be emitted after nuclear medicine examinations (P = .004). A total of 667 patients (23.3%) believed that radiation risks were unrelated to age, 1273 (44.4%) deemed their knowledge about radiation risks inadequate, and 2305 (80.4%) preferred to be informed about radiation risks by medical staff. A better knowledge of radiation issues was associated with receiving information from health care professionals (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.03; P < .001) and having a higher educational level (intermediate vs low: OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.88; P < .001; high vs low: OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.09-3.43; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance: The results of this survey suggest that patients undergoing medical imaging procedures have overall limited knowledge about medical radiation. Intervention to achieve better patient awareness of radiation risks related to medical exposures may be beneficial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Lifetime Imaging Tests of Survey Respondents
Responses of individuals who had received 3 or more imaging examinations (A) and 1 or more imaging examinations (B). PET indicates positron emission tomography.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis
The reference category for educational level was low level, and the reference category for self-perceived knowledge was inadequate knowledge. OR indicates odds ratio.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Mettler FA Jr, Bhargavan M, Faulkner K, et al. . Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources—1950-2007. Radiology. 2009;253(2):520-531. doi:10.1148/radiol.2532082010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brenner DJ. Should we be concerned about the rapid increase in CT usage? Rev Environ Health. 2010;25(1):63-68. doi:10.1515/REVEH.2010.25.1.63 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. . Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2078-2086. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A, et al. . The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(8):700-707. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.311 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Li X, Hirsch JA, Rehani MM, Ganguli S, Yang K, Liu B. Radiation effective dose above 100 mSv from fluoroscopically guided intervention: frequency and patient medical condition. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215(2):433-440. doi:10.2214/AJR.19.22227 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types