142 N . Shubayr : Radioprotection 2024 , 59 ( 2 ), 138 – 143
committed . The group that always uses RPE has significantly higher mean scores for perceived seriousness , perceived benefits , perceived barriers , cues to action , and self-efficacy than the group that not fully committed ( p < 0.05 ). This suggests that the group that always uses RPE has a stronger belief that radiation exposure is a serious health threat , that using RPE can reduce the risk of radiation exposure and its consequences , that there are few obstacles or drawbacks to using RPE , that they receive adequate reminders and encouragement to use RPE , and that they have the confidence and ability to use RPE correctly and consistently . The only HBM construct that does not show a significant difference between the groups is perceived susceptibility , which means that both groups have similar levels of awareness of their vulnerability to radiation exposure .
The results of the logistic regression analysis showed that type of hospital and perceived benefits were significant predictors of RPE utilization among radiologic technologists . Higher utilization of RPE was found to be significantly associated with perceived benefits . In comparison to previous studies conducted on industrial workers , perceived benefit towards RPE utilization was not identified as an independent predictor in previous studies ( Wright et al ., 2019 ; Tessema et al ., 2022 ). The disparity in findings between radiologic technologists and industrial workers could potentially be attributed to differences in educational level , media exposure , and organizational and cultural factors among the participants . Also , the differences in RPE utilization across hospital types may be attributed to variations in organizational culture , level of resources available , or differences in management practices . Therefore , interventions to improve RPE utilization need to be tailored to the specific hospital setting . For example , public hospitals may need to focus on addressing resource constraints and improving the availability and accessibility of RPE , while private hospitals may need to focus on improving management practices that promote a culture of safety and accountability . A supplementary study , aimed at investigating the differences observed across different hospital settings , would be a valuable and informative endeavor .
The strength of the study lies in its use of a wellestablished and empirically supported model to understand the health behavior of radiologic technologists , who are exposed to ionizing radiation on a regular basis . The study also used a reliable and valid instrument to measure the HBM constructs and controlled for potential confounding variables , such as age , gender , education , and work experience . The study provided valuable insights into the factors that motivate or hinder radiologic technologists from using RPE , which can inform the development of effective interventions to improve their radiation protection practices . However , it is important to note the limitations of our study . Firstly , the study design was cross-sectional and observational , which precludes us from establishing causal relationships between the HBM constructs and RPE utilization . Additionally , we used a relatively small sample size , which may limit the generalizability of our findings to other settings . Furthermore , our study only used the HBM to assess radiation-related health beliefs of the study subjects . While the scale has been validated and widely used previously , it may not capture all the determinants of RPE utilization among radiologic technologists .
5 Conclusion
This study explored the perceptions of radiologic technologists towards the use of RPE in fluoroscopy units using the HBM . The results showed that most radiologic technologists were committed to using RPE ( 63 %), but a considerable proportion were not fully committed ( 37 %), indicating the need for immediate interventions to emphasize the importance of consistent RPE usage to reduce radiation exposure risks in the workplace . The results also revealed that the radiologic technologists recognize the benefits of using RPE and have confidence in their ability to do so , but they also perceive some barriers and have low levels of perceived susceptibility and seriousness of radiation exposure . Moreover , the study examined the mean scores of the HBM constructs among two groups of radiologic technologists and found the group that always uses RPE showed significantly higher mean scores for perceived seriousness , perceived benefits , perceived barriers , cues to action , and self-efficacy compared to the group that were not fully committed . This indicates that the group that consistently uses RPE has stronger beliefs about the seriousness of radiation exposure , the benefits of using RPE , fewer barriers to usage , more cues to action , and higher self-efficacy in using RPE correctly and consistently . Furthermore , the study identified two significant predictors of RPE utilization , the type of hospital and perceived benefits among the two groups . Overall , our study emphasizes the importance of promoting RPE compliance and emphasizes the importance of educating radiologic technologists on the benefits of using RPE . Strategies to promote the perceived benefits of RPE utilization may include training programs , provision of adequate RPE , and regular feedback on the effectiveness of RPE utilization .
Acknowledgments
The author extend his appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and Innovation , Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the project number ISP22-23 .
Funding
This work was supported by the Deputyship for Research and Innovation , Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia [ grant numbers ISP22-23 ].
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest .
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request .
Ethics approval
All ethical considerations were adhered to , including obtaining institutional review board approval . Confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained .