244 I. Harbaj et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 3), 242 – 249
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants( n = 367).
Characteristics |
Choices |
Number of |
|
|
participants |
Percentage
Gender |
Male |
198 |
54.0 |
|
Female |
169 |
46.0 |
Age group |
< 30 years |
103 |
28.1 |
|
30 – 39 years |
140 |
38.1 |
|
40 – 49 years |
93 |
25.3 |
|
≥ 50 years |
31 |
8.4 |
Work experience in years |
< 5 |
146 |
39.8 |
|
5 – 9 |
82 |
22.3 |
|
10 – 14 |
51 |
13.9 |
|
15 – 19 |
51 |
13.9 |
|
≥20 |
37 |
10.1 |
Work sector |
Public hospital |
187 |
51.0 |
|
Private clinic |
51 |
13.9 |
|
Private practice |
129 |
35.1 |
Radiation protection |
Yes |
327 |
89.1 |
training |
No |
40 |
10.9 |
Type of training |
Initiale |
327 |
100 |
Training satisfaction |
Yes |
43 |
13.1 |
|
No |
284 |
86.9 |
Interest in additional radiation protection training
After developing the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted with 20 participants from the target group to test the tool’ s validity and reliability. Cronbach’ s alpha values for attitude scores were 0.75, while for practice scores, they were 0.79. Participants received written notification that their participation was voluntary and anonymous, and they provided informed consent by completing the questionnaire.
The data were analyzed statistically using SPSS version 26 software. Participants’ demographic profiles, knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding radiological examination rationale were detailed using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, averages, and standard deviations. Independent-sample t-tests and one-way analyses of variance( ANOVA) were applied to compare differences in participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices, with Tukey posthoc testing utilized when necessary. Pearson’ s correlation coefficient was employed to examine the relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to radiological examination justification. Finally, multiple regression was applied to study the factors influencing practices concerning the justification of radiological examinations. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
To ensure the highest quality of scientific reporting in our study, we used ChatGPT( GPT-4) exclusively for linguistic and grammatical revisions, while the scientific content was entirely developed by the authors.
3 Results
3.1 Participant socio-demographic data
A total of 367 general practitioners participated in our study. Table 1 displays the participants’ demographic and professional details. Males made up 54.0 % of the sample( n = 198). The most represented age group was 30 – 39( 38.1 %). A significant proportion( 39.8 %) had less than five years of experience in their line of work. For 51.0 % of the doctors, public hospitals were the primary practice setting. 89.1 % of participants had received basic radiation protection training. However, 86.9 % deemed this training inadequate. Notably, none of the participants had undergone additional training in this area. Furthermore, 97.8 % of the surveyed physicians indicated a need for further training, and all reported prescribing CT scans as part of their clinical practice.
3.2 Participants’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding the justification of radiological examinations
Participants’ average knowledge score on the justification of radiological exams was 6.41 ± 1.36 out of 12 points. The average attitude score towards radiological examination rationale was 3.79 ± 0.42 out of 5 points, while the average practice score was 3.38 ± 0.42 out of 5 points( see Tab. 2).