You are a first-year graduate student. You are taking a graduate course on research and writing. In this assignment, your professor has asked you to revise one of your papers based on feed

1

Deliverable 4 – Create a Draft of an Introduction Section for a Research Paper

Attempt 2

Jamie Raines

Rasmussen College

HSA5000CBE Section 01CBE Scholarly Research and Writing

Caroline Gulbrandsen

7/27/2022

2

Introduction Section of a Research Paper

Radiation exposure has been one of the main problems facing us today. The general

population has an average radiation dosage of 2.5 mSv per year, accounting for roughly 15% of the

total radiation exposure (Algohani, et al., 2018 pg3). CT scanning has led to an increase in medical

exposure during the last two decades. However, 20% of medical exposures are clinically harmful.

The field of radiology is a vital one in modern medicine. According to the National Council on

Radiological Protection and Diagnostics' 2010 research, "Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the US

population," the general public's radiation exposure has increased sevenfold since the early 1980s

(Khaled, et al., 2018). On the one hand, there is a great deal of concern about long-term health

impacts like cancer because there is no known safe dosage and adverse effects may take up to two

centuries to manifest. Radiation dose and danger linked with radiological exams are poorly

understood. Different studies have been carried out, with most participants being radiology staff.

Still, there is a lack awareness of the risks of radiation exposure to non-radiology staff. This paper

addresses the question about radiation awareness and lack of radiation exposure knowledge among

non-radiology staff.

Training for radiologists and radiographers is comprehensive, but non-radiologists are only

required to complete a radiation safety course to get a certificate of core knowledge. The legislative

document specifies what constitutes core knowledge. Radiation physics, biology, dose reduction

techniques, and radiation safety are all covered in this course of study. Radiation doses connected

with many radiological operations are underestimated by non-radiologists, regardless of whether or

not they have taken a core of information class. Therefore, this research question is critical because

3

it illustrates the effects of a lack of knowledge about the relative radiation doses of radiographical

procedures for non-clinicians (Alotaibi, & Muhyi, 2019).

There are various gaps in the previous studies regarding this issue. According to Hobbs, et

al., (2018), there is a lack of knowledge about the radiation dose and danger connected with

radiological exams. Researchers from various specialities, medical students, interns, and general

practitioners have participated in many researches, but the non-radiology staff has not been fully

educated about the dangers of radiation. Therefore, my research study will look at the non-

radiology staff and the dangers they are in due to a lack of knowledge about radiation exposure.

My study results indicate overall poor knowledge of radiation dose and risk among

radiology residents, fellows, staff radiologists, and technologists of the Department of Medical

Imaging. This is not different from many prior publications showing similar results among medical

students, interns, and physicians of various non-radiological specialties. To the best of my

knowledge, no research has been performed exclusively among radiology workers. The lack of

large studies of radiation knowledge among radiology workers could be because radiation dose and

risks are part of their learning curriculum, and the assumption is that they would be experts in

different aspects of radiation. The physicians need to have sufficient knowledge of radiation risks,

as they would be the ones requesting a radiology examination in the first place. However,

radiologists are expected to have a wider and deeper knowledge of various aspects of medical

radiation exposure and should be available to guide physicians in choosing an appropriate imaging

modality that would provide the optimal answer to the clinical question with minimal radiation

hazard

4

As a result of this study, I will gain a better understanding of how non-radiology personnel

misunderstand the risks patients face from radiation exposure during routine imaging procedures

and how they fail to address common patient concerns effectively. Recommending doctors are the

ones who initially seek testing; therefore, they must know enough about radiation to do so safely.

This study is critical because it entails reducing the harmful biological effects of ionizing radiation

during medical tests to the absolute minimum. Public health initiatives may aim to improve the

quality of radiology treatment or reduce exposure to risk factors like ionizing radiation.

Radiologists and radiobiologists may work together to get the data they need to practice evidence-

based medicine, a cornerstone of modern medicine. I believe that our institution is not alone in this

battle and unfortunately currently there are no published data on radiation knowledge to compare

with other teaching institutions in North America.

I am trying to enforce the recommendations of the American College of Radiology blue

ribbon panel, which includes improving medical physics training during residency, including

radiation safety topics in exit examinations, regular in-service training for technologists on

radiation safety, which we are currently conducting every three months, and advanced training of

selected enthusiastic technologists who can impart periodic training to other staff (Amis ES Jr, &

Butler PF, 2012). Periodic continuous medical educational (CME) activities are recommended

among radiology workers (Niemann, et al., 2012), and we are working to make this mandatory for

all, including the staff radiologists irrespective of subspecialties, to update themselves on radiation

dosage and risks and provide the evidence of acquired CME credits.

Medical educational activities could help in providing optimal usage of imaging resources

and minimize the unpredictable and unavoidable risk of cancer, albeit very small. Pre- and post-

5

educational session assessments can be performed to assess improvement in these endeavors. Other

measures such as including the patient’s total radiation exposure in the imaging report, and

including the radiation dosages in the radiology request forms could also create greater awareness

among physicians and 5 patients, and potentially reduce the injudicious usage of imaging, although

this needs extensive discussion among physicians and patients for ethical concerns and practical

difficulties. This study is critical because it entails reducing the harmful biological effects of

ionizing radiation during medical tests to the absolute minimum. Public health initiatives may aim

to improve the quality of radiology treatment or reduce exposure to risk factors like ionizing

radiation. Radiologists and radiobiologists may work together to get the data they need to practice

evidence-based medicine, a cornerstone of modern medicine.

References

Algohani, K. A., Aldahhasi, A. A., Algarni, A. H., Amrain, K. Y., & Marouf, M. A. (2018).

Awareness of radiation protection measures among radiologists and non-radiologists. The

Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine, 70(3), 371-375.

6

Alotaibi, A. E., & Muhyi, N. A. (2019). Assessing the radiation protection knowledge among non-

radiologists. Surgery, 69, 57-5.

Amis ES Jr, Butler PF (2012) ACR white paper on radiation dose in medicine: three years later. J

Am Coll Radiol 7(11):865–870

Hobbs, J. B., Goldstein, N., Lind, K. E., Elder, D., Dodd III, G. D., & Borgstede, J. P. (2018).

Physician knowledge of radiation exposure and risk in medical imaging. Journal of the

American College of Radiology, 15(1), 34-43.

Khaled, A., Ali, A., Abdullah, A., Khaled, A., & Majed, M. (2018). Awareness of radiation

protection measures among radiologists and non-radiologists.

Niemann T, Nicolas G, Roser HW, Muller-Brand J, Bongartz G (2012) Imaging for suspected

pulmonary embolism in pregnancy-what about the fetal dose? A comprehensive review of

the literature. Insights Imaging 1(5–6):361–37