Characteristics of the final sample of 300 patients are presented in Table 1.
Participants had a broad age distribution from 18 to 85 years and were predominantly female (n=194,
64,7%).
Both Hospitals had the same sample size (n=150,
50%) and the patients were submitted mostly to General Radiology examinations (n=198,
66%) and less to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (n=30,
10%).
Table 1: Demographic information
Characteristics
|
Patients (n=300) n (%)
|
Gender,
female
|
194 (64,7)
|
Age,
years
|
|
18-24
|
20 (6,7)
|
25-44
|
58 (19,3)
|
45-54
|
112 (37,3)
|
65-85
|
110 (36,7)
|
Imagiologic Technique
|
|
General Radiology
|
198 (66)
|
CT
|
72 (24)
|
MRI
|
30 (10)
|
Results of the pilot study indicate that the adapted instrument is internally consistent,
with a high reliability scale (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha = 0.93).
The average percentage of “excelent” ratings was 45% ( X =3,87).
As shown in Table 2,
the most classified aspects as “excelent” came in the form of using an accessible language (60,7%,
X =4,37) and the respect provided (60%; X =4,41) .
The least classified aspects as “excelent” englobed patient encoragement to ask questions (16,3%; X =2,61) and interest shown in patients ideas about his/her health (27%; X =3,26).
Table 2: Percentage of “excelent” ratings and mean scores per Item
Item
|
Excelent
|
Mean
|
|
N
|
%
|
|
1.
Greeted me in a way that made me feel comfortable
|
148
|
49,3
|
4,18
|
2.Treated me with respect
|
181
|
60
|
4,41
|
3.Showed interest in my ideas about my health
|
81
|
27
|
3,26
|
4.Understood my main health concerns
|
100
|
33,3
|
3,66
|
5.Paid attention to me (looked at me,
listened carefully)
|
155
|
51,7
|
4,15
|
6.Let me talk without interruptions
|
154
|
51,3
|
4,12
|
7.Gave me as much information as I wanted
|
167
|
55,7
|
4,06
|
8.Talked in terms I could understand
|
182
|
60,7
|
4,37
|
9.Checked to be sure I understood everything
|
160
|
53,3
|
4,17
|
10.Encouraged me to ask questions
|
49
|
16,3
|
2,61
|
11.Involved me in decisions as much as I wanted
|
109
|
36,3
|
3,67
|
12.Discussed next steps,
including any follow-up plans
|
97
|
32,3
|
3,28
|
13.Showed care and concern
|
118
|
39,3
|
3,73
|
14.Spent the right amouto f time with me
|
145
|
48,3
|
4,13
|
15.How would you rate the Radiographers conduct
|
162
|
54
|
4,27
|
The Pearson correlation was selected to evaluate relationships between dependent variables and shown to be positive and “statistically significant” at 0,01 level for all questionnaire Items as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Pearson Correlation test between Items of Interpersonal communication
Item
|
Q1
|
Q2
|
Q3
|
Q4
|
Q5
|
Q6
|
Q7
|
Q8
|
Q9
|
Q10
|
Q11
|
Q12
|
Q13
|
Q14
|
Q15
|
Q1
|
1,00
|
0,81
|
0,33
|
0,43
|
0,69
|
0,58
|
0,50
|
0,65
|
0,56
|
0,22
|
0,48
|
0,38
|
0,53
|
0,60
|
0,6
|
Q2
|
|
1,00
|
0,30
|
0,39
|
0,66
|
0,56
|
0,48
|
0,65
|
0,56
|
0,21
|
0,41
|
0,32
|
0,49
|
0,54
|
0,55
|
Q3
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,71
|
0,43
|
0,37
|
0,33
|
0,27
|
0,36
|
0,43
|
0,34
|
0,45
|
0,40
|
0,31
|
0,34
|
Q4
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,59
|
0,52
|
0,47
|
0,48
|
0,51
|
0,43
|
0,52
|
0,47
|
0,49
|
0,48
|
0,44
|
Q5
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,68
|
0,54
|
0,69
|
0,64
|
0,29
|
0,56
|
0,43
|
0,59
|
0,63
|
0,65
|
Q6
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,63
|
0,64
|
0,62
|
0,31
|
0,63
|
0,47
|
0,45
|
0,58
|
0,51
|
Q7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,56
|
0,62
|
0,30
|
0,53
|
0,41
|
0,45
|
0,55
|
0,5
|
Q8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,70
|
0,21
|
0,56
|
0,32
|
0,48
|
0,69
|
0,61
|
Q9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,31
|
0,59
|
0,44
|
0,50
|
0,62
|
0,58
|
Q10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,39
|
0,48
|
0,42
|
0,32
|
0,33
|
Q11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,51
|
0,49
|
0,53
|
0,49
|
Q12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,52
|
0,44
|
0,38
|
Q13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,61
|
0,64
|
Q14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
0,66
|
Q15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,00
|
Note: All correlations are significant at level 0,01
No statistically significant differences about the patient perception of the Radiographer Interpersonal Skills were found between hospitals,
meanwhile results indicate that there are statistically significant differences for showing interest for patients ideas about their health (p=0,011 between CT and MRI),
Encouraging them to asking questions (p=0,004 between GR and MRI) and showing care and concern (p=0,050 between GR and MRI,
p=0,010 between CT and MRI ) for Magnetic Resonance Imaging where results were significantly improved comparing to the other techniques.
Female patients perceived that the Radiographer greeted them in a way that made them feel more confortable (p=0,043) and respected (p=0,002) than male patients,
since statistically significant differences were found for these items and finally,
patients between 45 and 65 years old rated the item “Encouraged me to ask questions” significantly better than older patients (p=0,008).