Methods
Good practice recommendations (1)
- for referring physicians
- focus on patients’ health
Medical imaging awareness campaign (2)
- for general public
- hazards of unjustified imaging
B-QUAADRIL (3)
- based on criteria IAEA
- adapted to Belgian context
Brochure: Focus on Medical Imaging (4)
- promote use of recommendations and inform on updates
(1) Good Practice Recommendations
www.health.belgium.be/richtlijnen-medische-beeldvorming
www.health.belgium.be/recommandations-imagerie-medicale
Fig. 1: Good Practice Recommendations
References: Belgian Federal Public Service Public Health
(2) Awareness campaign
“Medische beelden zijn geen vakantiekiekjes. Wees er zuinig mee”
“Les images médicales ne sont pas des photos de vacances. Pas de rayons sans raisons”
(Translation: "Medical images are no holiday pictures.
Use only when necessary")
Fig. 2: Awareness campaign
References: Belgian Federal Public Service Public Health
www.zuinigmetstraling.be/ www.pasderayonssansraisons.be
Fig. 3: website awareness campaign
References: Belgian Federal Public Service Public Health
Emphasis on most sensitive groups:
- pregnant women (unborn child)
- children
(3) B-QUAADRIL
Based on: Comprehensive Clinical Audits of Diagnostic Radiology Practices: A Tool for Quality Improvement,
IAEA,
(2010)
(4) Focus on Medical Imaging
www.focusonmedicalimaging.be
Fig. 4: Focus on Medical Imaging
References: Focus on Medical Imaging (association without lucrative purpose)
Medical imaging awareness campaign: pre- and post-test results
The impact of the last awareness campaign was measured by a market research bureau who implemented a survey among 1000 adults.
The study consisted of a survey before the start of the awareness campaign and a survey three weeks after the end of the awareness campaign.
Summarized,
we have learned the following from this research:
- we mostly reach people who are professionally active
- 58% of respondents heard or saw at least one part of the campaign in the past few weeks
- the radio spot was heard by 43% of respondents
- the campaign images were seen by 38% of respondents
- 13% of respondents have heard about the campaign website
(of which 1% has visited this website)
- the patient brochure was noticed by 6%
(of which 7 out of 10 have read this patient brochure)
- Between the pre- and post-test,
there is no progress regarding the knowledge of respondents concerning ionizing radiation and the radiation risks of different imaging techniques.
- However,
we note that respondents who noticed the campaign,
are better informed about the radiation risk of medical imaging techniques,
as well as (the effects of) ionizing radiation.
It is important to note that this is a symmetrical link between 'seeing the campaign/hearing the campaign' and 'increase in knowledge'.
It is possible that respondents who are already better informed,
are more receptive to the awareness campaign and thus they notice it more quickly.
An increase in knowledge through the awareness campaign should result in visiting the website and/or reading the brochure.
The proportion of respondents who have done this,
however,
is lower than the proportion in which the knowledge has improved.
- Regardless of whether or not there was an increase in knowledge,
75% of the respondents (post measurement) state that they are better informed about the advantages and disadvantages of medical imaging thanks to the awareness campaign.
70% of the respondents state that,
in the future,
they’ll be more likely to ask their physician or dentist questions about medical imaging examinations.
Hence the awareness campaign scores well in terms of behavioral change.
Use of medical Imaging: preliminary results
Since the start of the awareness campaign in 2012,
the number of CT examinations are still increasing but less rapidly than before.
Fig. 5: Number of CT examinations
References: Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance
For the indication of chronic lower back pain (a topic on which we focus in particular) we notice a fairly large decrease in the number of radiographies.
In 2013 the number of lumbar radiographs for chronic lower back pain decreased by 15% compared to 2012.
Fig. 6: Number of radiographs of the lower back
References: Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance