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