Deliverable 4 - Create a Draft of an Introduction Section for a Research Paper

profileSlugger
J_Raines_Deliverable4_Attempt1_7242022_Needfix.pdf

1

Deliverable 4 - Create a Draft of an Introduction Section for a Research Paper

Jamie Raines

Rasmussen College

HSA5000CBE Section 01CBE Scholarly Research and Writing

Caroline Gulbrandsen

7/24/2022

2

INTRODUCTION SECTION OF A RESEARCH PAPER

The general population has an average radiation dosage of 2.5 mSv per year, accounting for

roughly 15% of the total radiation exposure (Algohani, et al., 2018). CT scanning has led to an

increase in medical exposure during the last two decades. However, 20% of medical exposures are

clinically harmful. The field of radiology is a vital one in modern medicine. According to the

National Council on Radiological Protection and Diagnostics' 2010 research, "Ionizing Radiation

Exposure of the US population," the general public's radiation exposure has increased sevenfold

since the early 1980s (Khaled, et al., 2018). On the one hand, there is a great deal of concern about

long-term health impacts like cancer because there is no known safe dosage, and that adverse

effects may take up to two centuries to manifest. Radiation doses and the danger linked with

radiological exams are poorly understood. Different studies have been carried out, with most

participants being radiology staff. Still, there is a lack of awareness of the risks of radiation

exposure to non-radiology staff.

My research question is, “Among non-radiology staff, where do we now stand regarding

radiation awareness?”

Training for radiologists and radiographers is comprehensive, but non-radiologists are only

required to complete a radiation safety course to get a certificate of core knowledge. The legislative

document specifies what constitutes core knowledge. Radiation physics, biology, dose reduction

techniques, and radiation safety are all covered in this course of study. Radiation doses connected

with many radiological operations are underestimated by non-radiologists, regardless of whether or

not they have taken a core of information class. Therefore, this research question is critical because

it illustrates the effects of a lack of knowledge about the relative radiation doses of radiographical

procedures for non-clinicians (Alotaibi, & Muhyi, 2019).

Robert Neuteboom
But your question does not directly address this. Revise your question to capture this idea.
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
I mentioned on your Deliverable 6 that this phrase is too vague. Be specific. What do you mean "where do we now stand regarding radiation awareness?" The problem with this question is that it doesn't promote a study. Clarify.
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Why is this sentence all alone in a paragraph? You should connect the problem and the gap to your question and explain how the question designed to address the gap informs the purpose of your study. Explain how these pieces function together in your study.
Robert Neuteboom
Good - you identify a clear gap in the research.
Robert Neuteboom
Think of a way to better entice the reader to continue reading. This fact is not altogether an attention-grabber.
Robert Neuteboom
Delete
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Cite with page number.
Robert Neuteboom
Include page number in your citation for specific percentages and data.
Robert Neuteboom
Capitalize only the first letter of main words: Introduction. "Section of a research paper" isn't necessary.

3

There are various gaps in the previous studies regarding this issue. According to a scientific

literature survey, there is a lack of knowledge about the radiation dose and danger connected with

radiological exams. Researchers from various specialties’, medical students, interns, and general

practitioners have participated in various research, but the non-radiology staff has not been

addressed. Therefore, my research will look at the non-radiology staff and the dangers they are in

due to a lack of knowledge regarding the same.

Our study results indicate overall poor knowledge of radiation dose and risk among

radiology residents, fellows, staff radiologists, and technologists of the Department of Medical

Imaging. This is not different from many prior publications showing similar results among medical

students, interns, and physicians of various non-radiological specialties. To the best of our

knowledge, no research has been performed exclusively among radiology workers. Very few

studies included radiologists as a part of multiple specialties and one recent study compared the

knowledge between radiologists and non-radiologists. The lack of large studies of radiation

knowledge among radiology workers could be because radiation dose and risks are part of their

learning curriculum and the assumption that they would be experts in different aspects of radiation.

The physicians need to have sufficient knowledge of radiation risks, as they would be the ones

requesting a radiology examination in the first place.

However, radiologists are expected to have a wider and deeper knowledge of various

aspects of medical radiation exposure and should be available to guide physicians in choosing an

appropriate imaging modality that would provide the optimal answer to the clinical question with

minimal radiation hazard.

As a result of this study, we will gain a better knowledge of how non-radiology personnel

misunderstands the risks patients face from radiation exposure during routine imaging procedures

Robert Neuteboom
misunderstand
Robert Neuteboom
understanding
Robert Neuteboom
We?
Robert Neuteboom
comma
Robert Neuteboom
is
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
What do you mean "compared the knowledge"? What knowledge?
Robert Neuteboom
Which one?
Robert Neuteboom
Which ones have?
Robert Neuteboom
Why do you switch from "me" pronouns" to "we" and "our" pronouns? Who are the we and our you are talking about here?
Robert Neuteboom
by conducting a (method) to...
Robert Neuteboom
My?
Robert Neuteboom
Regarding the "same" what exactly?
Robert Neuteboom
study
Robert Neuteboom
Do you mean, the non-radiology staff have not been trained?
Robert Neuteboom
What kind of research? Clarify what you mean here.
Robert Neuteboom
Remove apostrophe.
Robert Neuteboom
Cite?
Robert Neuteboom
Which one? Name it.

4

and how they fail to address common patient concerns effectively. Recommending doctors are the

ones who initially seek testing; therefore, they must know enough about radiation to do so safely.

We must take knowledge about radiation dose and risk more seriously. Many of our subspecialty

leads and the Chair of the Medical Imaging Department were surprised and disappointed with the

results. We do believe that our institution is not alone in this battle and unfortunately currently

there are no published data on radiation knowledge to compare with other teaching institutions in

North America.

We are trying to enforce any of the recommendations of the American College of

Radiology blue ribbon panel, which includes improving medical physics training during residency,

including radiation safety topics in exit examinations, regular in-service training for technologists

on radiation safety, which we are currently conducting every 3 months, and advanced training of

selected enthusiastic technologists who can impart periodic training to other staff (Amis ES Jr,

Butler PF (2012). Periodic continuous medical educational (CME) activities are recommended

among radiology workers (Niemann T, Nicolas G, Roser HW, Muller-Brand J, Bongartz G (2012),

and we are working to make this mandatory for all, including the staff radiologists irrespective of

subspecialties, to update themselves on radiation dosage and risks and provide the evidence of

acquired CME credits.

This could help in providing optimal usage of imaging resources and minimizing the

unpredictable and unavoidable risk of cancer, albeit very small. Pre- and post-educational session

assessments can be performed to assess improvement in these endeavors. Other measures such as

including the patient’s total radiation exposure in the imaging report, and including the radiation

dosages in the radiology request forms could also create greater awareness among physicians and

Robert Neuteboom
comma
Robert Neuteboom
Delete comma
Robert Neuteboom
comma
Robert Neuteboom
providing a very small impact.
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
minimize
Robert Neuteboom
What is "This"?
Robert Neuteboom
Place in-text citation at the end of the sentence.
Robert Neuteboom
Replace the parenthesis here with a comma.
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
(Amis & Butler, 2012)
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Transition and topic sentence?
Robert Neuteboom
Delete
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
three
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
What institution are you referring to?
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Were these participants in your study? You need to first introduce them and explain their role in your study.
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom
Robert Neuteboom

5

patients, and potentially reduce the injudicious usage of imaging, although this needs extensive

discussion among physicians and patients for ethical concerns and practical difficulties.

This study is critical because it entails reducing the harmful biological effects of ionizing

radiation during medical tests to the absolute minimum. Public health initiatives may aim to

improve the quality of radiology treatment or reduce exposure to risk factors like ionizing

radiation. Radiologists and radiobiologists may work together to get the data they need to practice

evidence-based medicine, a cornerstone of modern medicine.

Robert Neuteboom
And the impact on non-radiologists and patients? How does this study help them?

6

References

Algohani, K. A., Aldahhasi, A. A., Algarni, A. H., Amrain, K. Y., & Marouf, M. A. (2018).

Awareness of radiation protection measures among radiologists and non-radiologists. The

Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 70(3), 371-375.

Alotaibi, A. E., & Muhyi, N. A. (2019). Assessing the radiation protection knowledge among non-

radiologists. Surgery, 69, 57-5.

Amis ES Jr, Butler PF (2012) ACR white paper on radiation dose in medicine: three years later. J

Am Coll Radiol 7(11):865–870

Khaled, A., Ali, A., Abdullah, A., Khaled, A., & Majed, M. (2018). Awareness of radiation

protection measures among radiologists and non-radiologists.

Niemann T, Nicolas G, Roser HW, Muller-Brand J, Bongartz G (2012) Imaging for suspected

pulmonary embolism in pregnancy-what about the fetal dose? A comprehensive review of

the literature. Insights Imaging 1(5–6):361–372