Radiography (London, England : 1995) · 2026
Strategies and barriers in radiation risk communication in medical imaging: A scoping review of radiographers' practices.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Angaag N A, Sey S, Armo J, Ago J L
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Radiation risk communication allows patients to make an informed decision, enhancing their autonomy during diagnostic imaging procedures. It can also reduce anxiety and improve patient cooperation. However, evidence suggests that radiographers often provide inadequate or unclear information about radiation risks. Several barriers further limit effective communication, thereby undermining patient awareness, informed decision-making, and overall patient-centred care. This study explored strategies and barriers in radiation risk communication.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework and reported in line with PRISMA-ScR. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Included studies focused on professional guidelines and empirical evidence on radiation risk communication.
RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified three key themes: (i) radiation risk communication approaches, (ii) barriers to effective communication, and (iii) needs for development in communication practice. Radiographers predominantly used active or passive verbal communication approaches when discussing radiation risks. Key barriers included fear of causing patient anxiety, limited knowledge and low confidence in risk communication, ambiguity in role responsibility, and lack of appropriate resources. Recommended areas for improvement included enhanced radiographer education and training, use of interactive communication strategies, and incorporation of supportive materials such as posters and patient information leaflets.
CONCLUSION: Radiation risk communication practices among radiographers remain inconsistent and often inadequate despite their central role in patient education and informed consent. Standardised protocols and institutional support are required to improve consistency, clarity, and effectiveness of communication in clinical practice.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Strengthening education and training in radiation risk communication, clarifying professional roles, and implementing structured communication protocols alongside supportive patient education materials can improve patient understanding, enhance informed consent, and strengthen trust while promoting safer, patient-centred care.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework and reported in line with PRISMA-ScR. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Included studies focused on professional guidelines and empirical evidence on radiation risk communication.
RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified three key themes: (i) radiation risk communication approaches, (ii) barriers to effective communication, and (iii) needs for development in communication practice. Radiographers predominantly used active or passive verbal communication approaches when discussing radiation risks. Key barriers included fear of causing patient anxiety, limited knowledge and low confidence in risk communication, ambiguity in role responsibility, and lack of appropriate resources. Recommended areas for improvement included enhanced radiographer education and training, use of interactive communication strategies, and incorporation of supportive materials such as posters and patient information leaflets.
CONCLUSION: Radiation risk communication practices among radiographers remain inconsistent and often inadequate despite their central role in patient education and informed consent. Standardised protocols and institutional support are required to improve consistency, clarity, and effectiveness of communication in clinical practice.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Strengthening education and training in radiation risk communication, clarifying professional roles, and implementing structured communication protocols alongside supportive patient education materials can improve patient understanding, enhance informed consent, and strengthen trust while promoting safer, patient-centred care.