Congress:
EuroSafe Imaging 2021
Keywords:
Radiographers, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Experimental, Radiation safety, Workforce
Authors:
S. Maharjan, K. Parajuli, S. Sah, U. Poudel
DOI:
10.26044/esi2021/ESI-10710
Results or findings
Of 35 participants, 28 were male and 7 were female, with mean age 26.09 ± 7.18 years. 37.1 % (n = 13) were students and 62.9 % (n = 22) were included in this study. The demographic information of the participants is demonstrated in Fig 2.
Out of 14 questions, the maximum and minimum scores obtained were 13 and 4 respectively. The average radiation awareness was 9.6 (68.57 %). Each participant stated that they had taken formal education (lecture or training course) related to radiation protection. 6 participants (17.14 %) stated that they had inadequate knowledge about the risk of radiation and radiation safety, whereas all the participants had clinical posting or job experience in x-ray related procedures. The correct response for each question is listed in Fig 3.
Fig 4 shows the distribution of the knowledge score by demographic information. Mann-Whitney U test resulted that the knowledge score was the same across categories of gender, U = 75.50, p > 0.05. Kruskal-Wallis H test demonstrated that the knowledge score was the same across age groups, χ2(3) =7.35, p > 0.05. However, the knowledge score was statistically significant according to academic qualifications, χ2(5) = 16.43, p < 0.05. Pairwise post-hoc comparison test with Bonferroni correction showed that diploma graduates and MD radio-diagnosis residents have different knowledge score at p < 0.05. According to Fig 4, the lowest average knowledge level was 7.76 (55.42 %) for diploma graduates, whereas the highest average knowledge level was 13.00 (92.85 %) for the medical physicist. There was the same distribution of knowledge according to experience, U = 171.00 p > 0.05. However, the knowledge score was higher in students than non-students, U = 69.50 p < 0.05.
The dots in the PCA plot, Fig 5 showed the total number of participants, n=35. The arrow represented the question. The direction of the arrow denoted the correlation of the question with the principal component, whereas the length of the arrow showed the contribution of the question to the principal component. The questions that lie in the positive x-axis have a positive correlation with the first principal component, whereas the questions that lie in the negative x-axis have a negative correlation. The question numbers 5 and 8 are negatively correlated, whereas other remaining questions were positively correlated with the principal components. The colour of the dots demonstrated academic qualification. Though we have six academic qualification groups, the plot showed only three groups circle because the “ggbiplot” demonstrates the groups with larger variability. The groups with lesser variability will not be shown in circles by default. Diploma graduate group was negatively correlated with the knowledge score, whereas BSc MIT student and MDRD resident groups were positively correlated.