Radioprotection 2024 , 59 ( 2 ), 138 – 143 © SFRP , 2024 https :// doi . org / 10.1051 / radiopro / 2023046 Available online at : www . radioprotection . org
ARTICLE
Factors influencing radiologic technologists ’ commitment to radiation protective equipment utilization in fluoroscopy units : an analysis using the health belief model scale
N . Shubayr *
Department of Diagnostic Radiography Technology , College of Applied Medical Sciences , Jazan University , Jazan 45142 , Saudi Arabia . Received : 23 October 2023 / Accepted : 11 December 2023
Abstract – Objective : This study aimed to assess the perceptions of radiologic technologists towards the use of radiation protective equipment ( RPE ) in fluoroscopy units and to identify the Health Belief Model constructs , “ perceived susceptibility , perceived severity , perceived benefits , perceived barriers , cues to action , and self-efficacy ”, that predict RPE utilization among radiologic technologists . Methods : A cross-sectional observational study was conducted among 228 radiologic technologists in Saudi Arabia . Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire that included socio-demographic characteristics , frequency of RPE utilization , and the Health Belief Model . Logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of RPE utilization . Results : The findings indicate that 63 % of radiologic technologists reported always being committed to using RPE , while 37 % reported not fully committed . Perceived severity , perceived benefits , perceived barriers , cues to action , and self-efficacy showed significant associations with RPE utilization between the two groups of radiologic technologists : those who always use RPE and those who are not fully committed ( p < 0.05 ). Logistic regression showed that perceived benefits were a significant predictor of RPE utilization ( AOR = 0.20 , 95 % CI : 0.60 – 0.67 , p = 0.009 ), and type of hospital was also a significant predictor ( AOR = 0.09 , 95 % CI : 0.1 – 0.97 , p = 0.047 ). Conclusion : The study highlights the need for interventions to improve the consistent use of RPE among radiologic technologists in fluoroscopy units . Emphasizing the importance of RPE usage , addressing barriers , and providing adequate cues to action can help enhance radiologic technologists ’ commitment to using RPE and reduce radiation exposure risks . Tailoring interventions to the specific hospital setting and considering the perceived benefits of using RPE are crucial for promoting a culture of safety and accountability in different healthcare settings .
Keywords : Radiation protection / fluoroscopy units / radiological technologist / radiation protective equipment / health belief model
1 Introduction
Radiation protective equipment ( RPE ) is essential in radiology departments ( RDs ), including fluoroscopy units , to protect patients , medical professionals , and other personnel from harmful radiation exposure ( Antunes-Raposo et al ., 2022 ; Budosova et al ., 2022 ). Diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the RDs involves the use of radiation , which can emit ionizing radiation that can cause long-term health effects such as cancer and short term effects such as burns and cataracts ( Biso et al ., 2020 ; Budosova et al ., 2022 ). RPE such as lead aprons , thyroid collars , and radiation glasses provide
* Corresponding author : nshubayr @ jazanu . edu . sa physical barriers between the body and radiation , preventing the absorption of harmful radiation . For example , when using a 0.5-mm lead apron , the X-ray transmittance for 70 – 100 kilovolt peak ( kVp ) was between 0.5 % and 5 %, and when using a lead composite or lead-free apron with a 0.5-mm lead equivalent thickness , the X-ray transmittance ranged from 0.6 % to 6.8 % ( Cheon et al ., 2018 ). Proper use of RPE is crucial to ensure the safety and well-being of everyone in the radiology department ( Mayer et al ., 2018 ).
Radiologic technologists play a critical role in RDs by capturing high-quality images for diagnostic and treatment purposes ( Neep et al ., 2014 ). However , some radiologic technologists may not be fully committed to using RPE despite the known risks of radiation exposure ( Salim et al ., 2022 ). There are various reasons for this , including issues with the fit