Absztrakt
Introduction: Radiation has proven adverse biological effects, nevertheless, it continues to be widely used in the diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. The effects vary according to dose and duration of exposure. Previous studies have shown that doctors’ knowledge of radiation safety is insufficient and hundreds ofunnecessary examinations are performed yearly.
Materials and methods: A questionnaire listing the radiation doses of routine radiological diagnostic procedures was administered to doctors at the University College Hospital, Ibadan and to a cross-section of Nigerian radiologists at a conference. Respondents were asked for the equivalent doses of radiation for common radiological examinations when a normal chest x-ray is regarded as one unit. A correct response was assigned one mark.
Results: A total of 238 (79.3%) out of 300 questionnaires were completed and returned by doctors in various specialties and grades. There were 157 (66.0 %) males and 81(34%) females. Eighty four respondents (35.3 %) had received formal training in ionizing radiation. The totalmean score obtained was 3.7 ± 2.7 of 21 marks (17.6%) and the median was 4.0(19.0%). Only 38 (16.0%) doctors correctly identified the effective dose of a chest radiograph while 35 (14.7%) correctly related the effective dose of a chest radiograph to the annual dose received from background radiation. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging examinations were wrongly regarded as using ionizing radiation by 49 (20.5%) and 73 (30.6%) respondents respectively. Formal training in radiation protection did not appear to significantly affect the level of radiation knowledge(X 2=1.061; p=0.588).
Conclusion: Majority of Nigerian doctors are unaware of the radiation dose patients are exposed to during radiological examinations, probably due to inadequate information and/or training about radiation use and safety. Improved radiation safety teaching and workshops for physicians may help reverse this trend.
Keywords: Ionizing radiation, medical education, radiation dose, radiological examinations, doctors’ knowledge.
Résumé
La radiation a prouvé des effets biologiques indésirables, Cependant, ca continue à être largement utilisé dans le diagnostic et traitement de plusieurs maladies. Ces effets variant en fonction de la dose et de la durée de l’exposition. Les études antérieures ont démontrées que les connaissances des médecins sur la protection des radiations est insuffisant et cent examens unitiles sont fait
annuellement. Le questionnaire listant les doses de radiation routine en procédures de diagnostic radiologiques était administré aux médecins au Centre Universitaire Hospitalier, d’Ibadan et a une section de radiologistes Nigérian à la conférence. Les participants répondaient a la connaissance des doses de radiations au cours d’un x-ray normal de la poitrine. La repose juste recevait un point. Au total 238 (79.3%) des 300 questionnaires ont été completé et retourné by les médecins de diverses spécialités et niveau. Ils etaient 157 (66.0 %) males et 81(34%) femelles. Quatre vingt quatre participants (35.3 %) avaient reçu une formation formelle en radiation ionisante. La moyenne totale des résultats obtenue était de 3.7 ± 2.7 de 21 points (17.6%) et la médiane était de 4.0 (19.0%). Suelemnt 38 (16.0%) medecins identifiaient correctement la dose effective du radiographe de poitrine tandis que 35 (14.7%) reliait cette dose effective a la dose annuelle reçue des radiations antérieures. Les examens radiologiques par l’ultrasonde et par résonance magnétique étaient mal vu utilisant la radiation ionisante 49 (20.5%) et 73 (30.6%) participants respectivement. Une formation formelle en protection de radiation n’apparait pas affectant significativement la connaissance sur le taux de radiation(X 2=1.061; p=0.588). La majorité des médecins nigérians ne sont pas informés des doses de radiation donc les patients sont exposés pendant les examens radiologiques, probablement a cause d’information inadéquate et/ou manque formation à propos de la radiation et protection. L’amélioration des enseignements en protection de radiation et des ateliers pour les médecins peuvent aider à réduire cette tendance.
Correspondence: Dr. G.I. Ogbole, Department of Radiology, University College Hospital, PMB 5116, Ibadan, Nigeria. E-mail: gogbole@yahoo.com
Hivatkozások
Berrington De Gonzalez A and Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-ray: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004; 363:345-351.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection in biomedical research. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report No. 93, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, 1987.
Mettler Jr FA, Weist PW, Locken JA and Kelsey CA. CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000; 20:353–359.
Hart D and Wall BF. Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental X-ray examinations. NRPB 2002; NRPB-W4.
Royal College of Radiologists and National Radiological Protection Board. Patient dose reduction in diagnostic radiology. Documents of the National Radiological Protection Board 1990; 1: No 3.
Shiralkar S, Rennie A, Snow M, Galland RB, Lewis MH and Gower-Thomas K. Doctors’ knowledge of radiation exposure: questionnaire study. BMJ 2003; 327:371-372.
Hall EJ. Lessons we have learned from our children: cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Pediatr Radiol 2002; 32:700-706.
Ron E. Ionising radiation and cancer risk: evidence from epidemiology. Pediatr Radiol 2002; 32:232-237.
Picano E. Sustainability of medical imaging: Doctors and patients should be more aware of the long term risks of radiological investigations. BMJ 2004; 328:578–580.
Morin RL, Gerber TC and McCollough CH. Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 2003; 107:917-922.
Soye JA and Paterson A. A survey of awareness of radiation dose among health professionals in Northern Ireland. Br J Radiol. 2008; 81: 725–729.
Atilla Arslanoðlu, Sibel Bilgin, Zehra Kubalý et al. Maral. Doctors’ and intern doctors’ knowledge about patients’ ionizing radiation exposure doses during common radiological examinations. Diagn Interv Radiol 2007; 13:53-55.
Bury B. X-ray dose training: are we exposed to enough? Clin Radiol 2004; 59:926–927.
Jacob K, Vivian G and Steel JR. X-ray dose training: are we exposed to enough? Clin Radiol 2004; 59:928–934.
Thomas KE, Parnell-Parmley JE, Haidar S, Moineddin R, Charkot E, BenDavid G, et al. Assessment of radiation dose awareness among pediatricians. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36:823–832.
European Commission. Radiation protection 118: referral guidelines for imaging.
Picano E. Informed consent and communication of risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: how to escape from a communication inferno. BMJ 2004; 329: 849-851.
National Radiological Protection Board. Protection of the patient in X-ray computed tomography. London, UK: HMSO, 1992.
Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, Lubin JH, Preston DL, Preston RJ, Puskin JS, Ron E, Sachsk RK, Samet JM, Setlow RB, and Zaid M. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci. USA 2003; 100: 13761–13766.
Brenner DJ and Hall EJ. Computed tomography. A source of radiation exposure. New England J Med 2007; 357: 2277-2284.
Martin DR and Semelka RC. Health effect of ionizing from diagnostic CT. Lancet 2006; 367: 1712-1714.
The Royal College of Radiologists. Making the best use of clinical radiology services: referral guidelines (6th ed). London: The Royal College of Radiologists, 2007.
The 2010 MB, BS curriculum of the college of Medicine, University of Ibadan.ed.Oluwabunmi Olapade-Olaopa. Book Builders. Editions Africa: 2010; pg 152-157.