A total of 488 valid responses were collected from the different professionals that were classified as “Radiological Team” (n=274; 56.1%) and “Non-Radiological Team” (n=214; 43.9%). The first group included Radiologists (n=166; 34%) and Radiographers (n=108; 22.1%). The second group comprised Physiotherapists (n=105; 21.5%), Family Physicians (n=24; 4.91%), Gynaecologists (n=15; 3.1%), Other medical specialties (including Neurologists, Intensivists, Rehabilitation, Pulmonologists, Sports Medicine, Vascular, Emergency Medicine and Anesthesiologists) (n=40; 8.2%), as well as Other healthcare professionals (including Nurses and Podologists) (n=18; 3.7%) (Table III).

A total of 249 participants had more than 6 years experience performing ultrasonography (51.1%) and these were assigned as the “senior” group. The “junior” group contained the rest of the 238 participants (48.9%) (Table IV).

Global View (Table V)

Of the total collected sample, 68.2% (333 participants) responded as knowing the biological effects of ultrasound, however only 39.8% (194 of respondents) where aware of the MI or TI indicators. Consequently, 22.3% (109 participants) took into account the ODS when performing examinations. Of these, 79 reduced the output acoustic power, and for the remaining 30 participants it is unknown how taking the ODS into account affected their examination. 

The Radiological Team vs. The Non-Radiological Team (Table VI) 

The results show a difference of almost 20 points between the Radiological Team and the Non-Radiological Team concerning the identifications of the ODS indicators (p<0.001). Of the Radiological Team 67.8% (n=124) were aware of these indicators in contrast to 48.6% (n=70) of the Non-Radiological Team.

Of all respondents included in the survey, more than three quarters did not reduce the output acoustic power (AP) of the ultrasound equipment. However, there existed a significant difference between the two groups, where 28.4% (n=52) of the Radiological Team confirmed reducing parameters compared to 18.1% (n=26) of respondents in the Non-Radiological Team (p=0.029).

Radiologists vs. Radiographers (Table VII)

No significant differences were observed between the two groups. The majority was aware of the bioeffects of ultrasound (slightly higher amongst the Radiologists), and the majority responded that they did not take this information into account whilst performing the examination (over 62% in either group).

Junior or senior Radiologists vs. Radiographers (Table VIII)

Within the senior group, the Radiologists were more aware of the bioeffects compared to the radiographers (75.5% vs 64.3%), although this difference was not significant (p=0.124). However, this tendency was reversed in the junior group where the Radiographers displayed more knowledge on the bioeffects of ultrasound in comparison with the radiographers (63.3% vs 53.7% respectively). Once again, this difference was non-significant (p=0.292).

Junior or senior, The Radiological Team vs The Non-Radiological Team (Table IX)

On analysing the data, a higher score is seen for all questions in the senior group when compared to the junior group.

More than 76% of the junior participants from either group did not take the indicators into account, and 81% did not reduce the acoustic output power when performing ultrasounds.