246 I. Harbaj et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 3), 242 – 249
Table 4. Correlation between knowledge, attitudes and practices concerning the justification of radiological examinations.
Variables |
Knowledge |
Attitude |
Practices |
|
r( p) |
r( p) |
r( p) |
Knowledge |
1 |
|
|
Attitude |
0.566( ˂0.001) |
1 |
|
Practices |
0.547( ˂0.001) |
0.517( ˂0.001) |
1 |
Table 5. Factors affecting practices in justifying radiological examinations.
Variable |
B |
SE |
b |
t |
p |
( Constant) |
1.76 |
0.19 |
|
9.37 |
< 0.001 |
Knowledge |
0.09 |
0.02 |
0.28 |
4.16 |
< 0.001 |
Attitude |
0.25 |
0.05 |
0.24 |
4. 87 |
< 0.001 |
Gender: Male † |
– 1.00 |
0.04 |
– 0.12 |
– 2.80 |
0.005 |
Age group † 30 – 39 years |
– 0.07 |
0.06 |
– 0.08 |
– 1.20 |
0.230 |
40 – 49 years |
0.33 |
0.11 |
0.33 |
2.94 |
0.004 |
≥50 years |
0.55 |
0.16 |
0.36 |
3.43 |
0.001 |
Work experience † 5 – 9 years |
0.10 |
0.06 |
0.10 |
1.64 |
0.102 |
10 – 14 years |
– 0.16 |
0.10 |
– 0.13 |
– 1.61 |
0.108 |
15 – 19 years |
– 0.22 |
0.12 |
– 0.18 |
– 1.83 |
0.068 |
≥20 years |
– 0.30 |
0.16 |
– 0.21 |
– 1.90 |
0.058 |
|
Workplace †
Public hospital
|
0.04 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.83 |
0.408 |
Private practice |
0.03 |
0.06 |
0.04 |
0.61 |
0.542 |
Radiation protection training: Yes † |
0.11 |
0.06 |
0.08 |
1.67 |
0.095 |
R 2 = 0.450, Adjusted R 2 = 0.428, F = 20.42, p < 0.001 |
† Reference group: Gender: female, Age group: < 30 years, Work experience: < 5 years, Workplace: Private clinic, Radiation protection training: No regression model incorporated statistically significant characteristics from the univariate analysis, such as gender, age group, professional experience, workplace, and radiation protection training. Furthermore, the model included independent variables that correlated significantly with justification practices, such as knowledge about the rationale of radiological examinations and attitudes toward their justification. We created dummy variables by converting categorical data, including gender, age group, total work experience, workplace location, and radiation protection training. We examined the dependent variables’ multicollinearity and autocorrelation. The Durbin-Watson score of 1.926 suggests that the dependent variable has no autocorrelation. The correlations among the independent variables ranged from �0.18 to 0.55, with none exceeding 0.80, indicating that the explanatory factors were independent. Tolerance varied from 0.12 to 0.95, above 0.1, while the variance inflation factor( VIF) was between 1.05 and 8.10, below 10, indicating the absence of multicollinearity. Regression analysis was consequently deemed appropriate for the study’ s data.
The regression model was significant( F = 20.42, p < 0.001) and had a 42.8 % explanatory power for radiological examination justification practices. Factors influencing general practitioners’ practices included knowledge of radiological examination justification( b = 0.28, p < 0.001), attitudes towards justification( b = 0.24, p < 0.001), gender( b = 0.24, p < 0.001), and age. The 40-49( b = 0.33, p = 0.004) and over- 50( b = 0.36, p = 0.001) age groups significantly influenced these practices. In contrast, work experience, workplace, and radiation protection training did not have a considerable influence( p > 0.05)( Tab. 5).
4 Discussion
The current study evaluated general practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning the justification of radiological examinations, investigating the links between these characteristics and identifying the factors that influence these practices. The goal was to provide baseline data to guide