Physicians’ Perceptions of Radiation Dose Quantity Depend on the Language in Which It Is Expressed

Anand K. Narayan, Daniel Brotman, Leonard Feldman, Mahadevappa Mahesh, Jonathan Lewin, Daniel J. Durand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose Radiation dose information is increasingly requested by nonradiology providers, but there are no standard methods for communicating dose. The aim of this study was to compare physicians’ perceptions of the amount of radiation associated with similar dose quantities expressed using different dose terms to evaluate the impact of word choice on physicians’ understanding of radiation dose. Methods Internal medicine and pediatric residents were surveyed online for 42 days. After obtaining demographics and training levels, respondents were asked to rank five different radiation dose quantities, each corresponding to one of the five ACR relative radiation levels (RRLs) expressed using different dose terms. Respondents ranked the choices from least to greatest (ie, from 1 to 5) or indicated if all five were equal. For the final question, the same dose quantity was expressed five different ways. Results Fifty-one medicine and 45 pediatric residents responded (a 44% response rate). Mean differences in rankings were as follows: for chest x-rays, 0.109 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.018 to 0.236); for cross-country flights, 0.462 (95% CI, 0.338 to 0.585); for natural background radiation, −0.672 (95% CI, −0.793 to −0.551); for cancer risk, −0.294 (95% CI, −0.409 to −0.178); and for ACR RRL, 0.239 (95% CI, 0.148 to 0.329). Statistically significant differences were found in the distributions of rankings (P < .001) and percentage of correct rankings across each radiation dose term (P < .001), with the ACR RRL having the highest percentage of correct rankings (61.2%). Conclusions Adult and pediatric physicians consistently over- or underestimated radiation dose quantities using different terms to express radiation dose. These results suggest that radiation dose information should be communicated using standard terminology such as the ACR RRL scale to foster consistency and improve the accuracy of physicians’ radiation risk perceptions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)909-913
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume13
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

Language
Radiation
Physicians
Confidence Intervals
Background Radiation
Pediatrics
Internal Medicine
Terminology
Thorax
X-Rays
Medicine
Demography

Keywords

  • ACR RRL
  • dose
  • physician perception
  • Radiation
  • radiation risk

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Physicians’ Perceptions of Radiation Dose Quantity Depend on the Language in Which It Is Expressed. / Narayan, Anand K.; Brotman, Daniel; Feldman, Leonard; Mahesh, Mahadevappa; Lewin, Jonathan; Durand, Daniel J.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 13, No. 8, 01.08.2016, p. 909-913.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3b5b3ae887274fbf958d6d0928ca29de,
title = "Physicians’ Perceptions of Radiation Dose Quantity Depend on the Language in Which It Is Expressed",
abstract = "Purpose Radiation dose information is increasingly requested by nonradiology providers, but there are no standard methods for communicating dose. The aim of this study was to compare physicians’ perceptions of the amount of radiation associated with similar dose quantities expressed using different dose terms to evaluate the impact of word choice on physicians’ understanding of radiation dose. Methods Internal medicine and pediatric residents were surveyed online for 42 days. After obtaining demographics and training levels, respondents were asked to rank five different radiation dose quantities, each corresponding to one of the five ACR relative radiation levels (RRLs) expressed using different dose terms. Respondents ranked the choices from least to greatest (ie, from 1 to 5) or indicated if all five were equal. For the final question, the same dose quantity was expressed five different ways. Results Fifty-one medicine and 45 pediatric residents responded (a 44{\%} response rate). Mean differences in rankings were as follows: for chest x-rays, 0.109 (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], −0.018 to 0.236); for cross-country flights, 0.462 (95{\%} CI, 0.338 to 0.585); for natural background radiation, −0.672 (95{\%} CI, −0.793 to −0.551); for cancer risk, −0.294 (95{\%} CI, −0.409 to −0.178); and for ACR RRL, 0.239 (95{\%} CI, 0.148 to 0.329). Statistically significant differences were found in the distributions of rankings (P < .001) and percentage of correct rankings across each radiation dose term (P < .001), with the ACR RRL having the highest percentage of correct rankings (61.2{\%}). Conclusions Adult and pediatric physicians consistently over- or underestimated radiation dose quantities using different terms to express radiation dose. These results suggest that radiation dose information should be communicated using standard terminology such as the ACR RRL scale to foster consistency and improve the accuracy of physicians’ radiation risk perceptions.",
keywords = "ACR RRL, dose, physician perception, Radiation, radiation risk",
author = "Narayan, {Anand K.} and Daniel Brotman and Leonard Feldman and Mahadevappa Mahesh and Jonathan Lewin and Durand, {Daniel J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2016.03.026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "909--913",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Physicians’ Perceptions of Radiation Dose Quantity Depend on the Language in Which It Is Expressed

AU - Narayan, Anand K.

AU - Brotman, Daniel

AU - Feldman, Leonard

AU - Mahesh, Mahadevappa

AU - Lewin, Jonathan

AU - Durand, Daniel J.

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - Purpose Radiation dose information is increasingly requested by nonradiology providers, but there are no standard methods for communicating dose. The aim of this study was to compare physicians’ perceptions of the amount of radiation associated with similar dose quantities expressed using different dose terms to evaluate the impact of word choice on physicians’ understanding of radiation dose. Methods Internal medicine and pediatric residents were surveyed online for 42 days. After obtaining demographics and training levels, respondents were asked to rank five different radiation dose quantities, each corresponding to one of the five ACR relative radiation levels (RRLs) expressed using different dose terms. Respondents ranked the choices from least to greatest (ie, from 1 to 5) or indicated if all five were equal. For the final question, the same dose quantity was expressed five different ways. Results Fifty-one medicine and 45 pediatric residents responded (a 44% response rate). Mean differences in rankings were as follows: for chest x-rays, 0.109 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.018 to 0.236); for cross-country flights, 0.462 (95% CI, 0.338 to 0.585); for natural background radiation, −0.672 (95% CI, −0.793 to −0.551); for cancer risk, −0.294 (95% CI, −0.409 to −0.178); and for ACR RRL, 0.239 (95% CI, 0.148 to 0.329). Statistically significant differences were found in the distributions of rankings (P < .001) and percentage of correct rankings across each radiation dose term (P < .001), with the ACR RRL having the highest percentage of correct rankings (61.2%). Conclusions Adult and pediatric physicians consistently over- or underestimated radiation dose quantities using different terms to express radiation dose. These results suggest that radiation dose information should be communicated using standard terminology such as the ACR RRL scale to foster consistency and improve the accuracy of physicians’ radiation risk perceptions.

AB - Purpose Radiation dose information is increasingly requested by nonradiology providers, but there are no standard methods for communicating dose. The aim of this study was to compare physicians’ perceptions of the amount of radiation associated with similar dose quantities expressed using different dose terms to evaluate the impact of word choice on physicians’ understanding of radiation dose. Methods Internal medicine and pediatric residents were surveyed online for 42 days. After obtaining demographics and training levels, respondents were asked to rank five different radiation dose quantities, each corresponding to one of the five ACR relative radiation levels (RRLs) expressed using different dose terms. Respondents ranked the choices from least to greatest (ie, from 1 to 5) or indicated if all five were equal. For the final question, the same dose quantity was expressed five different ways. Results Fifty-one medicine and 45 pediatric residents responded (a 44% response rate). Mean differences in rankings were as follows: for chest x-rays, 0.109 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.018 to 0.236); for cross-country flights, 0.462 (95% CI, 0.338 to 0.585); for natural background radiation, −0.672 (95% CI, −0.793 to −0.551); for cancer risk, −0.294 (95% CI, −0.409 to −0.178); and for ACR RRL, 0.239 (95% CI, 0.148 to 0.329). Statistically significant differences were found in the distributions of rankings (P < .001) and percentage of correct rankings across each radiation dose term (P < .001), with the ACR RRL having the highest percentage of correct rankings (61.2%). Conclusions Adult and pediatric physicians consistently over- or underestimated radiation dose quantities using different terms to express radiation dose. These results suggest that radiation dose information should be communicated using standard terminology such as the ACR RRL scale to foster consistency and improve the accuracy of physicians’ radiation risk perceptions.

KW - ACR RRL

KW - dose

KW - physician perception

KW - Radiation

KW - radiation risk

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991678439&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991678439&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.03.026

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.03.026

M3 - Article

C2 - 27292371

AN - SCOPUS:84991678439

VL - 13

SP - 909

EP - 913

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 8

ER -