Medical imaging tests: Assessment of staffs and students' knowledge about radiation protection and risks and dose levels
Authors: Azadbakht Omid , Dehghani Seyedeh Leila , shafiee mohsen , scandarkolaei Parsa faghani , asadi Amirmasoud , arshadi Maryam , mohammadjani Sahar , hosseini Pariya , Dehnavi Zari 
Published: April 2020

Background

Identifying the level of radiology students and radiologist's awareness about their knowledge of radiation risks and radiation protection and their understanding of radiation dose levels in medical imaging tests will help global and national lawmakers adjust laws according to the recognized need in studies. The significance of this study is further enhanced when it is considered a lack of radiation awareness may increase the risk of radiation damage to themselves and patients.
Method:

This Crossectional study is done on 180 people, including 62 people were students (radiology residents and technologists), and 118 people were radiology staff (radiologists and radiographers). For measuring the awareness of participants, a prepared questionnaire which had a total of 22 questions. The poll was divided into three sections of which: Demographics data, Radiation protection awareness, and knowledge of radiologists about dose assessment. The questionnaire reliability was assessed in terms of internal consistency utilizing the Cronbach’s alpha (0.85_). A P-value of less than 0.05 was set a threshold for statistical sig-nuisance. Statistical analysis was carried out using software SPSS version 22.
Result

Most students believed that 1-year-old girls had the most sensitivity to radiation, while most staff found that radiation risk was unrelated to age and sex. Both staff and students found that crews working in nuclear medicine departments were more exposed to radiation (the majority). Most students and faculty also chose breast tissue as the most sensitive organ against radiation. It should be noted that among the staff responses, a significant number of bones were also selected. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Approximately 82 percent of students chose a dose of Lumbar X-ray exams between 1 and 50 times the PA chest, and only 9 percent answered the question correctly (100 − 50 times). However, 27% of employees chose the correct answer. Students on the average dose of mammography had more choice (1–10 times) of a PA chest test, while staff preferred 100–500. (Both groups did not perform well in this question). The crew performed better on the dose resulting from a PET-CT test as well as the dose estimate from a nuclear medicine heart scan, and selected 36% correct response (more than 500 times the PA chest), while students had a lower rating (1–10 times) than others.
Conclusion

Most students and staff believed that they had a suitable or sufficient level of awareness of ionizing radiation. Overall, 45% of students and staff rarely had any training or retraining (37%). Radiology students had a better level of knowledge about radiation protection than team, while team had better estimates in discussing dose assessment. In general, students and staff did not have sufficient information about radiation-related illnesses. Students and staff had accurate estimates of the dose received in a PA chest and the average dose of background radiation. Both groups had little information on mammography, but had good knowledge of ultrasound, MRI, and CT scans. In general, staff and students had a good understanding of nuclear medicine dose assessment. (Staff performed better)