Qualitative Study Sample

1 Introduction

The objectives of this study were to develop and validate the radiation perception scale for medical practitioners. To achieve these objectives, the study was conducted in various phases and the results were obtained. This chapter discusses the results obtained in the various phases of study with the background of literature. The discussion was done under the following headings.

5.2 Qualitative research

The public’s perceptions about the risks of radiation are adversely influenced by the many negative reports such as by the media on the hazards of all radiation. As a result, patients express concern about the risks of radiation from radiologic examinations. The risk and benefit of the medical examination which deals with ionizing

Even though the medical practitioners feel that they are scientifically correct within the culture of the professions, they should empower the patient in decision making skill about their treatment. The patients who are undergoing the medical examination involving ionizing have the right to know the risk and benefit and its duty of the medical practitioners to inform the patient. This may be problematic if there is lack knowledge and awareness of the radiation risks and benefits among the medical practitioners. The medical practitioners along with radiologist are well positioned to dispel these fears because of their training and their access to and ability to interpret information from scientific organizations specifically concerned with the determination of radiation risk. . Pamphlets and handouts can be given to anxious patients before examinations. In direct interaction with patients, the medical practitioners must listen to them and be prepared to address their concerns, especially those about repeat examinations, exposure during pregnancy, inadvertent exposure of the

The patient seldom becomes concerned about the risks of radiation if an abnormality is found. Another trigger that raises concerns is multiple or repeated exposures. Initially, the patient is worried that some disease process has been found. If the patient is told that the repeat exposure is needed because of a technical fault, his or her concerns about radiation risk are triggered. The determination of whether an examination should be repeated for a technical fault should be made by the radiologist whenever possible. If the information desired can be obtained, for example, through the use of a bright light, then a second examination should be unnecessary. A poorly positioned examination should be accepted if the resultant information is adequate. If additional views are required, particularly if the patient must be brought back into the examination room, an appropriate explanation should be provided to allay the concerns that something abnormal has been