JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES

2021, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 1–8

https://doi.org/10.1080/16878507.2020.1777657

Investigation of awareness level concerning radiation safety among healthcare

professionals who work in a radiation environment
Aysu Zekioğlua and Şule Parlar b

a
Faculty of Health Sciences, Health Management Department, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey; bVocational School of Health,
Radiotherapy Department, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Radiation safety has become more important issue due to increased use of ionizing radiation in Received 10 December 2019
diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study is to investigate the awareness and knowledge Accepted 27 May 2020
level concerning radiation safety among healthcare professionals who work in a radiation KEYWORDS
environment. The study population consisted of healthcare professionals who work in Ionizing radiation; radiation
a radiation environment at a state hospital, a university hospital and a private hospital in protection; radiation safety;
Edirne province. The survey used in this study was prepared by the investigators after review­ healthcare professional;
ing previous studies on similar subjects, and opinions were sought from experts in relevant Turkey
fields. The survey consists of two parts and a total of 28 questions. Results of this study revealed
that the rate of correct answers was 68.6% for questions on radiation safety among all
healthcare professionals. The present study demonstrated an insufficient level of knowledge
and awareness on radiation safety, even in the occupational groups that continuously work in
a radiation environment. Periodic trainings should be conducted in hospitals. Pre-test and post-
test exercises should be performed in order to increase the effectiveness of the trainings, and
interactive case studies specific to the clinic should be included in the program. Finally, with
electronic learning programs which may be implemented at national level, all relevant persons
would have access to these programs.

1. Introduction overlooked (European Society of Radiology, 2011;

Stewart et al., 2012). Therefore, imaging, interventional
Technological advances in healthcare have increased the procedures and therapeutic applications should be con­
use of ionizing radiation in diagnostics and treatment. ducted in line with certain principles that minimize the
Although the total radiation dose received by the US potential risks for patients, healthcare professionals and
population between 2006 and 2016 decreased by society.
15–20%, the number of computed tomographic imaging The general principles of radiation protection are
procedures using X-rays has been reported to increase by justification, improving protection and safety, and
13% (NCRP, 2019). While all processes using ionizing applying dose limits. In any medical application
radiation cause the patients and the society to receive that involves ionizing radiation, obtaining the most
more radiation compared to the past 30 years, it also accurate and reliable result with the lowest possible
causes an increase in the dose of the healthcare profes­ dose is only possible if these main principles are
sionals who carry out the processes (Cornacchia et al., followed. This is directly related to the level of
2019; Stewart et al., 2012). It is stated that there is a link knowledge about the negative effects of radiation
between the increase in the amount of radiation received on human health among healthcare professionals.
from man-made ionizing radiation sources and the devel­ Sufficient knowledge allows healthcare professionals
opment of cancer for life (Guleria et al., 2019; Haylock to conduct the risk-benefit analysis of a given pro­
et al., 2018; IAEA, 2018; Schauer & Linton, 2009; Tang & cedure to be performed for their patients, thereby
Loganovsky, 2018). With this increase, radiation safety has protecting themselves and the patients from unne­
become more important compared to previous years in cessary radiation.
order to protect the health and wellbeing of healthcare Studies evaluating the level of knowledge and aware­
professionals, patients and society. Recent studies have ness on radiation safety practices in healthcare profes­
attempted to draw attention to the potential risks and sionals indicate knowledge gaps about the biological
awareness of doctors about occupational radiation expo­ effects of radiation, even in groups who continuously
sure (Wakeford, 2018). However, despite the positive work with radiation (C. I. Lee et al., 2004). Several health­
health effects of applications, the harmful implications care professionals exhibit an insufficient level of knowl­
of ionizing radiation on human health cannot be edge concerning the doses utilized in certain radiological

CONTACT Aysu Zekioğlu [email protected] Faculty of Health Sciences, Health Management Department, Trakya University, Edirne,
Turkey
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 A. ZEKIOĞLU AND Ş. PARLAR

imaging procedures, including those who actually under­ 2.2. Data collection tool
estimate these doses (Faggioni et al., 2017; Yurt et al.,
The survey used in this study was prepared by the
2014). Furthermore, healthcare professionals who con­
investigators after reviewing previous studies on simi­
tinuously work with ionizing radiation appear to have
lar subjects, and opinions were sought from experts in
doubts about which radiological procedures involve
relevant fields. The survey consists of two parts and
ionizing radiation and which are truly radiation-free
a total of 28 questions. The first part contains questions
(Saeed et al., 2018). Taken together, the basic training
related to the demographics of healthcare profes­
on radiation safety provided for the personnel who
sionals participating in the present study. The second
work with radiation proves to be insufficient for their
part contains questions related to main principles and
entire working period; therefore, they should receive
trainings concerning radiation safety. Questions in this
additional training on specific topics at regular intervals
part are particularly focused on basic information and
(European Commission, 2014; Paolicchi et al., 2016).
trainings about radiation, tools used for the purpose of
Healthcare professionals who do not have sufficient
radioprotection in working environment, dosimeter
knowledge concerning these topics may not be able to
usage and risk assessment. Furthermore, questions
perform the risk-benefit analysis in clinical practice and
on patient safety, including special measures to be
thereby may expose themselves and their patients to the
taken for women of child-bearing potential during
harmful effects of radiation.
procedures that involve radiation have been included
The primary aim of the present study is to investi­
in this part. For questions on radiation safety training,
gate the awareness and knowledge level concerning
dosimeter usage and risk analysis, evaluation was
radiation safety among healthcare professionals who
based on options of either yes or no, and the reasons
work in a radiation environment. In addition, the
were probed in participants who indicated not using
planned study aims to provide clear results about
a dosimeter. Additionally, the participants were asked
radiation safety from the personnel in question, and
a question as to which procedures involve radiation in
guide the relevant measures that can be taken in the
order to assess their level of awareness. Multiple-
long term.
choice answers and single correct answers were used
in questions on staff safety and patient safety.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Population and sample 2.3. Data analysis

There are a state, a university and a private hospital in SPSS.23 program was used for the data analysis.
the city where the research is carried out. The study Frequency and percentage were calculated for the ana­
was included in all three institutions. The study popu­ lysis of demographic data. For the 10 questions on
lation consisted of healthcare professionals who work knowledge level concerning radiation safety, each cor­
in a radiation environment. The departments rect answer was scored as 1 and each incorrect answer
included in this study were Cardiology, Radiology, as 0 to calculate the mean values and standard devia­
Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Oncology. 123 health tion. The highest possible score in these questions was
professionals in the university hospital (Radiology: 56; 10. The differences in the level of knowledge about
Cardiology: 23; Radiation Oncology: 26; Nuclear radiation safety between the groups according to
Medicine: 20), 47 in the state hospital (Radiology: 30; experience, occupation and type of hospital were ana­
Cardiology: 13; Nuclear Medicine: 4; no radiation lyzed with one-way ANOVA. A minimum significance
oncology unit), and 4 in the private hospital level of 0.05 was utilized during the analyzes.
(Radiology: 4; no Cardiology, Nuclear Medicine and
radiation oncology unit) work in radiation areas
where the study is carried out. In the study, the sam­
3. Results
ple was not selected and the entire universe was tried Demographics obtained in the survey conducted
to be reached. Across the three hospitals, the total among healthcare professionals who work in
number of healthcare professionals working in radia­ a radiation environment are listed in Table 1.
tion fields was 174, 144 of whom participated in the According to the results, 72.9% of the participating
survey on a voluntary basis. As the working conditions healthcare professionals were employed in a university
(number of patient, number of imaging, physical con­ hospital, with 24.3% employed in a state hospital and
ditions, frequency of on duty etc.) are different in 2.8% in a private hospital while education status was
public and private health sector, all hospitals were high school in 3.5%, undergraduate/university in 70.8%,
included in the study. Ethics Committee approval postgraduate in 6.9% and PhD in 18.8%. Occupational
was obtained prior to initiation of the study, and the groups of the participants included doctors (18.8%),
survey was started only after obtaining separate per­ technicians (66.0%), nurses (10.4%),radiation physicists
missions for each hospital. (4.2%) and other (0.7%). Of all the participants, 45.8%
 JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 3

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the healthcare profes­ hospital where they worked, 56.9% stated having
sionals who participated in the study. knowledge of the scope and responsibilities of the
Number (N) Rate (%) committee. On the other hand, 54.2% of the partici­
Type of hospital University 105 72.9
State 35 24.3
pants reported the presence of a document on radia­
Private 4 2.8 tion safety. Of the participants, 60.4% indicated the
Education High school 5 3.5 presence of periodic training on radiation safety in
Undergraduate 102 70.8
Postgraduate 10 6.9 place at the hospital where they work and 63.9%
PhD 27 18.8 stated that these trainings raise awareness on radia­
Occupation Doctor 27 18.8
Technician 95 66.0 tion safety while 36.1% found the trainings inefficient
Nurse 15 10.4 in this regard (Table 2).
Radiation physicist 6 4.2
Other 1 0.7 According to the legislation in Turkey (Ministry of
Department Radiology 66 45.8 Health, 2012), the use of a dosimeter is mandatory in
Radiation Oncology 29 20.1
Nuclear Medicine 21 14.6
radiation areas, and the principles of use are detailed in
Cardiology 28 19.4 the legislation. For this reason, questions regarding
Experience Less than 3 years 42 29.2 dosimeter use and safety measures were asked.
4-10 years 36 25.0
More than 10 years 66 45.8 Regular usage of pocket dosimeter was reported by
Total 144 100 89.6% of the participants while 10.4% stated not using
a pocket dosimeter. Of the 15 participants reporting
non-usage of dosimeter, the reason was stated as not
were healthcare professionals work in radiology, 19.4% having a dosimeter (20%), forgetting to wear the dosi­
in cardiology, 20.1% in radiation oncology and 14.6% in meter (60%) and the perception of inaccurate measure­
nuclear medicine. In terms of occupational experience, ments obtained with the dosimeter (20%) (Table 3). In
the participants were stratified as those with experience addition to the dosimeter, use of lead apron was
of less than 3 years (29.2%), 4–10 years (25.0%) and more reported by 21.4% of the participants, with lead glass
than 10 years (45.8%). usage in 19.4 thyroid collar in 18.9%, lead shielding
Of the participants, 98.6% reported having barriers in 17.4%, lead glasses in 8.2%, lead gloves in
knowledge of radiation protection. Among these, the 5.1% and gonad protection in 4.9% while 4.7% reported
knowledge was a result of their specialty training in not using any additional protection.
61.8%, the training provided at the hospital they In this survey study, 81.8% of 54 participants work­
worked in 31.3%, the training provided at the time of ing in the radiology unit, 79.3% of the 23 participants
medical equipment installation in 0.7%, personal web- working in the radiation oncology unit, 95.2% of the 20
based research in 1.4%, and interaction with fellow participants working in nuclear medicine and 27 parti­
colleagues in 3.5%. Moreover, level of knowledge cipants working in the cardiology unit 96.4% stated
about the risks of ionizing radiation was self-rated as that they think that the risk levels of exposure to
excellent by 13.2% of the participants, good by 30.6%, harmful effects of radiation in their unit are higher
adequate by 36.1% and insufficient by 20.1%. than other departments (Table 4). These results may
According to the legislation in Turkey (Ministry of be interpreted as subjective opinions provided by the
Health, 2012; Turkey Atomic Energy Agency, 2015), participants with regard to the perception that the
The Radiation Safety Committee must be established departments they work lead to more exposure to
in hospitals. These committees have duties such as radiation than that in other departments.
providing radiation safety, regular training in hospi­ Some of the participants stated that procedures
tals and preparing radiation safety handbook. When that involve ionizing radiation, namely chest X-ray,
the answers to the questions on this subject are mammography, PET, fluoroscopy, radiological proce­
examined, 85.4% of the participants indicated the dures, angiography, radiotherapy, bone densitometer,
presence of a radiation safety committee at the CT, scintigraphy and iodine-131 treatment do not

Table 2. Level of knowledge about radiation safety training and the Radiation Committee.
Questions N %
Is the a Radiation Committee at the hospital where you work? Yes 123 85.4
No 21 14.6
Are you adequately informed concerning the scope and responsibilities of radiation safety committees? Yes 82 56.9
No 62 43.1
Are there periodic trainings on radiation safety at the hospital where you work? Yes 87 60.4
No 57 39.6
Is the information provided during the trainings efficient to raise awareness on radiation safety? Yes 92 63.9
No 52 36.1
Is there a specific guideline or document on radiation safety at the hospital where you work? Yes 78 54.2
No 66 45.8
Total 144 100
4 A. ZEKIOĞLU AND Ş. PARLAR

Table 3. Dosimeter usage. answers about informing patients concerning applica­

N % tions that involve radiation. For applications involving
Do you regularly use a Yes 129 89.6 radiation to be performed in women of child-bearing
pocket dosimeter? No 15 10.4
Total 144 100 potential, the rate of correct answers on questioning of
If not, what’s the reason? I don’t have a dosimeter 3 20 pregnancy were considerably high. Similarly, the rate of
I keep forgetting it 9 60
I don’t think it provides 3 20 knowing the most appropriate time for test for women
accurate measurements of child-bearing potential was 67.4% (Table 5).
Total 15 100
The arithmetic mean and standard deviation values
of the scores of the participants in 10 questions related
to radiation safety were calculated and given in Table 6.
Table 4. Assessment of risk levels of radiation exposure by
department.
When all questions related to the subject were evalu­
Yes No
ated, the average score of the participants in the ques­
Department n % n % tions on information level of radiation safety was 6.86
Radiology 54 81.8 12 18.2 (±1.88). In other words, considering that the possible
Radiation Oncology 23 79.3 6 20.7 highest total score was 10, the success rate was found to
Nuclear Medicine 20 95.2 1 4.8
Cardiology 27 96.4 1 3.6 be 68.6%. Furthermore, the differences in the level of
knowledge on radiation safety was investigated statisti­
cally between groups by occupation, experience and
involve radiation and that procedures that do not in type of hospital, and no significant difference was
fact involve radiation, namely MRI and USG involve seen with regard to knowledge level based on years of
radiation (Figure 1). experience and type of hospital. On the other hand, the
Of the participants, 20.8% did not know that the evaluation based on occupational groups revealed that
ALARA (‘as low as reasonably achievable’) principle radiation physicists had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher
meant the lowest possible radiation dose. Similarly, level of knowledge compared to other healthcare pro­
those with incorrect answers to questions on main fessionals. While radiation physicists had the highest
methods of radiation protection comprised 35.4% of score with 8.16 on average, the groups of professionals
the study population while 41.7% of the participants that followed were technicians, doctor and nurses,
provided incorrect answers concerning the use of dosi­ respectively. Other healthcare professionals were the
meter with lead shielding. The rate of incorrect answers group of those with the lowest score of 4.00 on average.
about the mean dose limit over five years and one year
among radiation staff was 35.4% and 44.4%, respec­
tively. The rate of respondents who gave incorrect
4. Discussion
answers regarding the frequency of annual health The technological advances in recent years have
checks required for radiation staff was 33.3%. increased the use of medical applications that involve
According to the legislation, radiation workers should radiation; and consequently, both patients and healthcare
have a health check once a year (Ministry of Health, professionals are known to be exposed to higher doses of
2012). As for questions on patient safety, approximately radiation (Schauer & Linton, 2009). The awareness and
one out of three participants (29.2%) provided negative level of knowledge of radiation among healthcare

INCORRECT CORRECT
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%

Figure 1. Which of the following are applications that involve ionizing radiation?
 JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 5

Table 5. Questions on the level of knowledge about radiation safety.

Correct Incorrect
n % n %
Questions on staff safety
What is the ALARA principle? 114 79.2 30 20.8
What are the main methods of radiation protection? 93 64.6 51 35.4
Where do you keep your pocket dosimeter when you use lead shielding? 84 58.3 60 41.7
What is the mean dose limit over five years allowed for radiation staff? 93 64.6 51 35.4
What is the mean dose limit over one year allowed for radiation staff? 80 55.6 64 44.4
How often is the Health Form filled in? 96 66.7 48 33.3
Questions on patient safety
Should the patient be informed about the risks posed by radiation? 102 70.8 42 29.2
Should women of child-bearing potential be asked about pregnancy before tests that involve ionizing radiation? 129 89.6 15 10.4
Except emergency situations, how should pregnancy be ascertained before performing a test that involves ionizing radiation in 101 70.1 43 29.9
women of child-bearing potential?
What is the safe timing to perform tests that involve ionizing radiation such as radiography (e.g. CT) or scintigraphy in women of 97 67.4 47 32.6
child-bearing potential except emergency situations?

Table 6. Comparison of knowledge level by occupation, training may be predicted to contribute to the suc­
experience and type of hospital. cess rate. According to the legislation in Turkey
N X Sd p-value (Ministry of Health, 2012; Turkey Atomic Energy
Occupation Doctor 27 6.81 1.98 0.011 Agency, 2015), radiation safety committees are
Technician 95 7.03 1.68
Nurse 15 5.60 2.58 responsible for radiation safety in hospitals. In-ser­
Radiation physicist 6 8.16 0.40 vice training are given to physicians, nurses and
Other 1 4.00 -
Experience Less than 3 years 42 6.38 1.96 0.133 technicians. Training generally organized once
4-10 years 36 7.00 1.86 a year by radiation committees. (Ministry of Health,
More than 10 years 66 7.10 1.81
Type of hospital University 105 6.77 1.87 0.272
2012). However, there is no information about
State 35 7.25 1.93 whether any tests or examinations have been car­
Private 4 6.00 1.41 ried out to assess the knowledge level of health
professionals on radiation safety during training.
Based on this situation, most of the participants
professionals directly involved in radiation-containing who took place in this survey reported the presence
applications is highly important and effective in terms of of a radiation safety committee at the hospital
risks that may arise for both the patients and themselves where they worked (85.4%), that periodic training
due to excess radiation during the tests (European Society were in place (60.4%) and that training was effec­
of Radiology, 2011). The present study aimed to investi­ tive in raising awareness on radiation safety (63.4%).
gate the awareness and level of knowledge of applica­ It may be said that periodic training conducted for
tions that involve radiation and radiation safety among healthcare professionals working with radiation
healthcare professionals who work in a radiation environ­ increases their knowledge level about radiation
ment with radiation exposure. safety. Additionally, interactive and case-based
Results of this study revealed that the rate of training modalities are stated to be more effective
correct answers was 68.6% (6.86 correct answers in terms of raising awareness (Sheng et al., 2016).
on average in 10 questions) for questions on radia­ In applications that involve radiation, the protection
tion safety among all healthcare professionals. of both the personnel and patients from radiation is
A study conducted in healthcare professionals who directly related to the level of awareness. In the present
are continuously involved in radiation-containing study, healthcare professionals in cardiology and
applications showed a success rate of 66.14% in nuclear medicine units stated that their risk of radia­
theoretical knowledge across participants (4.63 cor­ tion exposure was higher than that of those in other
rect answers on average in 7 questions) (Borgen & units. The other group who reported a perception of
Stranden, 2014). The success rate in the present higher risk of exposure to radiation was those who
study was higher than that in comparative studies work in the radiology department. The radioactive
performed with other healthcare professionals sources utilized in nuclear medicine and the interven­
(Khan et al., 2018). Nearly all of the participants in tional procedures performed more frequently in cardi­
this study (98.6%) stated that they had knowledge ology and radiology departments result in increased
of radiation protection and that they mostly (61.8%) radiation exposure for the staff. Therefore, healthcare
gained this knowledge during training. Taking into professionals who work in these departments use pro­
account that the target audience is the group of tective apparatuses such as lead shielding, lead glass
healthcare professionals who actively perform appli­ and thyroid protection. However, 10.4% of the partici­
cations that involve radiation, the knowledge of pants in the present study reported mostly forgetting
radiation safety provided during occupational to use a dosimeter. This translates into the presence of
6 A. ZEKIOĞLU AND Ş. PARLAR

a group -although a small one- that does not show the arising from relevant procedures were designed as well.
necessary caution/importance in this regard among According to the results, one fifth of the participants gave
healthcare professionals who work in a radiation incorrect answers concerning the ALARA principle and
environment. approximately one in three participants did not know
Both the types and numbers of procedures that the main methods of radiation protection. The rate of
involve radiation used in diagnosis and treatment those who provided incorrect answers about the use of
have increased considerably with the advances in tech­ dosimeter with lead shielding and about the mean dose
nology (UNSCEAR, 2000). Ensuring that healthcare pro­ limit over five years and one year were found to be quite
fessionals have knowledge of all applications that high. Almost all of our participants stated having received
involve radiation is effective in preventing the excess training on radiation safety and most reported atten­
radiation that may result from unnecessary examina­ dance at regular trainings. Although it is compulsory to
tions both for themselves and their patients. Almost all inform the patient about harmful effects of radiation
of the healthcare professionals who participated in the related to the procedure to be performed in our country,
present study answered correctly that MRI and ultra­ it was observed that some considered this unnecessary.
sound are among the non-radiation procedures per­ While it is mostly stated that ‘pregnancy interrogation
formed for diagnostic-therapeutic purposes. However, should take place when performing the necessary radi­
the rate of those answering incorrectly that nuclear ological procedures for pregnant patients or those with
radiation tests such as PET, bone densitometry and child-bearing potential’, one in three participants pro­
iodine-131 treatment are non-radiation procedures vided an incorrect answer about who should do this
was considerably high. Of the participants, 29.2% sta­ and how. Information on precautions to be taken during
ted PET as a non-radiation procedure while this rate radiological procedures conducted for pregnant patients
was 45.8% for bone densitometry and 45.8% for or those with child-bearing potential have been described
iodine-131 treatment. Bone densitometry is performed in several publications and guidelines (American College
to assess bone density using very low energy X-rays. of Radiology, 2018).
However, in both PET scan and iodine-131 treatment, With regard to answers on radiation protection of the
the patient continues to emit radiation to their sur­ staff and patients, knowledge gaps were noted, even in
rounding after the procedure due to the radioactive those who had received and continued to receive training
material administered during the application. Since on radiation safety. Studies have revealed that healthcare
nearly all of the participants stated that they have professionals who continuously work in a radiation envir­
knowledge of radiation protection, it is an unexpected onment have a higher level of knowledge of radiation
result to obtain a high rate of incorrect answers con­ safety compared to others, although insufficient training
cerning such tests. is observed even in these groups, highlighting the fact
Most of the studies investigating the level of knowl­ that such training should be provided not only through
edge and awareness about radiation safety are conducted working life but also during specialty training (Borgen &
among doctors, students and patients, who do not work Stranden, 2014; R. K. Lee et al., 2012; Paolicchi et al., 2016).
continuously in a radiation environment. In particular, the In the present study, level of knowledge about radiation
awareness and knowledge level of doctors who request safety was evaluated by experience level, occupation and
patients to undergo procedures that involve radiation type of hospital, and no significant difference was found
have been shown to be extremely important in terms of (p > 0.05) for experience and type of hospital. Several
patient safety and reducing the dose exposure of patients studies have shown that occupational experience
(Campanella et al., 2017; Chun-sing et al., 2012). The increases knowledge level, in other words, further training
questions asked in these studies are mostly about the contributes to level of knowledge favorably
dose of the requested radiological imaging procedure (Macía-Suárez & Sánchez-Rodríguez, 2018; Senemtaşi
(e.g., tomography/CT), the risk of cancer or side effects Ünal et al., 2018). In the present study, the rates of correct
that may occur (Campanella et al., 2017; Chun-sing et al., answers were similar in the groups with less than three
2012; Ramanathan & Ryan, 2015; Senemtaşi Ünal et al., years of experience and more than 10 years of experience,
2018). In the present study, knowledge-based questions and no significant difference was observed between
were asked about radiation safety, such as those on these groups. While the unwillingness of senior employ­
ALARA principle, main methods of radiation protection ees to change their habits and update their knowledge is
and dose limits. Questions about the necessity of inform­ expected (Szarmach et al., 2015) to make a difference
ing patients in the event of an imaging test involving between the level of knowledge, a different result was
radiation and the procedures to be performed for patients obtained in this study. It is considered that not being able
who are likely to become pregnant were also included. to make radiation safety training systematic, not attend­
Taking into account the fact that the target audience ing to training due to work intensity, and not evaluating
herein was a group of healthcare professionals who con­ the training with objective measurement tools (pre-test,
tinuously work in a radiation environment, questions on post-test, scale etc.), may cause lack of awareness and
protecting themselves and patients from the radiation level of knowledge of the participants to be similar.
 JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH AND APPLIED SCIENCES 7

In the evaluation based on occupational groups, used to determine the main causes of situations objec­
radiation physicists were associated with a significantly tively, such as lack of information, lack of awareness.
higher level of knowledge about radiation safety com­
pared to other healthcare professionals (p < 0.05). The
other groups with correct answers to relevant questions Disclosure statement
were technicians, doctors, nurses, and other healthcare
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
professionals, in this respective order. A study investi­
gating the awareness on radiation safety among nurses
who work in the same department with radiology tech­ ORCID
nicians did not reveal a significant difference between
these two occupational groups (Senemtaşi Ünal et al., Şule Parlar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9422-853X
2018). In the study presented herein, the finding that
radiation physicists were those with the highest level of References
knowledge was not unexpected taking into account
that they are in charge of taking necessary precautions American College of Radiology. (2018). ACR–SPR practice
parameter for imaging pregnant or potentially pregnant
for radiation protection who may also provide training
adolescents and women with ionizing radiation. https://
on this subject matter. The lowest level of knowledge www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/preg
noted in nurses and other healthcare professionals is nant-pts.pdf
likely to result from the lack of training in this regard Borgen, L., & Stranden, E. (2014). Radiation knowledge and
during their basic training and knowledge gained only perception of referral practice among radiologists and
through periodic trainings. radiographers compared with referring clinicians. Insights
into Imaging, 5(5), 635–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/
In conclusion, insufficient level of knowledge about s13244-014-0348-y
applications that involve radiation is a highly important Campanella, F., Rossi, L., Giroletti, E., Micheletti, P., Buzzi, F., &
parameter in radiation protection both for healthcare Villani, S. (2017). Are physicians aware enough of patient
professionals and patients. The present study demon­ radiation protection? Results from a survey among physi­
strated an insufficient level of knowledge and aware­ cians of Pavia District–Italy. BMC Health Services Research,
17(1), 406. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2358-1
ness on radiation safety, even in the occupational
Chun-sing, W., Bingsheng, H., Ho-kwan, S., Wai-lam, W., Ka-
groups that continuously work in a radiation environ­ ling, Y., & Tiffany, C. Y. C. (2012). A questionnaire study
ment. In order for all hospital personnel to work safely in assessing local physicians, radiologists and interns’ knowl­
applications that involve radiation, all of the necessary edge and practice pertaining to radiation exposure related
conditions need to be fulfilled. This may ensure that to radiological imaging. European Journal of Radiology, 81
both the staff and patients and their relatives are (3), e264–e268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.
022
exposed to the lowest possible radiation dose. For this; Cornacchia, S., Errico, R., La Tegola, L., Maldera, A.,
periodic trainings should be conducted in hospitals and Simeone, G., Fusco, V., Niccoli-Asabella, A., Rubini, G., &
training content should include all applications that Guglielmi, G. (2019). The new lens dose limit: Implication
involve radiation and be specific to the relevant clinic. for occupational radiation protection. La Radiologia
Regular training programs should also be provided for Medica, 124(8), 728–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-
019-01027-7
other healthcare professionals who do not continuously
European Commission. (2014). Radiation protection No. 175.
work in a radiation environment but are still subject to Guidelines on radiation protection education and training of
radiation exposure. Pre-test and post-test exercises medical professionals in the European Union.
should be performed in order to increase the effective­ Luxembourg: Office of the European Union. https://ec.
ness of the trainings, and interactive case studies speci­ europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/175.pdf
fic to the clinic should be included in the program. With European Society of Radiology. (2011). White paper on radia­
tion protection by the European Society of Radiology.
the establishment of radiation safety committees in all Insights into Imaging, 2(4), 357–362. https://doi.org/10.
hospitals, it would be possible to monitor and conduct 1007/s13244-011-0108-1
regular trainings. And finally, with electronic learning Faggioni, L., Paolicchi, F., Bastiani, L., Guido, D., &
programs which may be implemented at national Caramella, D. (2017). Awareness of radiation protection
level, all relevant persons would have access to these and dose levels of imaging procedures among medical
students, radiography students, and radiology residents
programs.
at an academic hospital: Results of a comprehensive
Due to ethical factors, identity information was not survey. European Journal of Radiology, 86, 135–142.
obtained from healthcare professionals who participated https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.033
in the study. Furthermore, the responses were not shared Guleria, R., Bhushan, B., Guleria, A., Bhushan, A., & Dulari, P.
with third parties (such as hospital management). Based (2019). Harmful effects of ionizing radiation. International
on this, the answers are thought to reflect the actual Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering
Technology (IJRASET), 7(12), 887–889. https://doi.org/10.
situations. In the study, using only a questionnaire is 22214/ijraset.2019.12141
a limitation. In future studies, besides the questionnaire, Haylock, R. G., Gillies, M., Hunter, N., Zhang, W., &
in-depth interviews with healthcare professionals can be Phillipson, M. (2018). Cancer mortality and incidence
8 A. ZEKIOĞLU AND Ş. PARLAR

following external occupational radiation exposure: An examinations on the health of workers and their patients
update of the 3rd analysis of the UK national registry for in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied
radiation workers. British Journal of Cancer, 119(5), Sciences, 11(4), 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.
631–637. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0184-9 2018.04.001
IAEA. (2018). Radiation protection and safety in medical uses of Schauer, D. A., & Linton, O. W. (2009). National council on
ionizing radiation safety standarts. Marketing and Sales radiation protection and measurements report shows sub­
Unit, International Atomic Energy Agency. stantial medical exposure increase. Radiological Society of
Khan, M. O., Khan, M. S., Janjua, O., Ali, A., & Hussain, S. (2018). North America, Inc.
Knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation exposure Senemtaşi Ünal, E., Geliş, K., & Baykan, P. (2018). Investigation
in common radiological investigations among final year of awareness levels about the radiation safety of personnel
medical students, foundation doctors, specialist radiology working in the imaging units of the hospitals in Agri,
registrars and radiographers at a UK university teaching Turkey. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied
hospital. BJR| Open, 1(xxxx), 20180014. https://doi.org/10. Sciences, 11(2), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.
1259/bjro.20180014 2017.10.009
Lee, C. I., Haims, A. H., Monico, E. P., Brink, J. A., & Forman, H. P. Sheng, A. Y., Breaud, A. H., Schneider, J. I., Kadom, N.,
(2004). Diagnostic CT scans: Assessment of patient, physi­ Mitchell, P. M., & Linden, J. A. (2016). Interactive learning
cian, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and module improves resident knowledge of risks of ionizing
possible risks. Radiology, 231(2), 393–398. https://doi.org/ radiation exposure from medical imaging. Current
10.1148/radiol.2312030767 Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 45(4), 258–264. https://
Lee, R. K., Chu, W. C., Graham, C. A., Rainer, T. H., & Ahuja, A. T. doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.11.002
(2012). Knowledge of radiation exposure in common radi­ Stewart, F., Akleyev, A., Hauer-Jensen, M., Hendry, J.,
ological investigations: A comparison between radiologists Kleiman, N., Macvittie, T., . . . Muirhead, C. (2012). ICRP
and non-radiologists. Emergency Medicine Journal, 29(4), publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions and
306–308. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2011-200481 early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and
Macía-Suárez, D., & Sánchez-Rodríguez, E. (2018). Radiation organs–threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation
protection knowledge among radiologists in northwest protection context. Annals of the ICRP, 41(1–2), 1–322.
Spain. Radiología (English Edition), 60(4), 318–323. https:// doi:10.1177/ANIB_41_1-2
doi.org/10.1016/j.rxeng.2018.01.001 Szarmach, A., Piskunowicz, M., Świętoń, D., Muc, A.,
Ministry of Health. (2012). Regulation on radiation dose, limits Mockałło, G., Dzierżanowski, J., & Szurowska, E. (2015).
and working principles of personnel working with ionizing Radiation safety awareness among medical staff. Polish
radiation source in health care. Journal of Radiology, 80, 57. https://doi.org/10.12659/PJR.
NCRP. (2019). Report No. 184 – Medical Radiation Exposure of 892758
Patients in the United States. Scientific Committee 4-9, Tang, F. R., & Loganovsky, K. (2018). Low dose or low dose
ISBN: 9781944888169. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/ rate ionizing radiation-induced health effect in the human.
NCRP/NCRP_Report_184_overview.pdf Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 192, 32–47. https://
Paolicchi, F., Miniati, F., Bastiani, L., Faggioni, L., Ciaramella, A., doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2018.05.018
Creonti, I., Sottocornola, C., Dionisi, C., & Caramella, D. Turkey Atomic Energy Agency. (2015). Radiation safety work­
(2016). Assessment of radiation protection awareness ing procedure of the committees and their basis guide.
and knowledge about radiological examination doses UNSCEAR, A. (2000). United nations scientific committee on the
among Italian radiographers. Insights into Imaging, 7(2), effects of atomic radiation. In (Vol. 2). ISBN 92-1-142238-8
233–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0445-6 Wakeford, R. (2018). The growing importance of radiation
Ramanathan, S., & Ryan, J. (2015). Radiation awareness worker studies. Nature Publishing Group.
among radiology residents, technologists, fellows and Yurt, A., Çavuşoğlu, B., & Günay, T. (2014). Evaluation of
staff: Where do we stand? Insights into Imaging, 6(1), awareness on radiation protection and knowledge about
133–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-014-0365-x radiological examinations in healthcare professionals who
Saeed, M. K., Al-shaari, H., Almarzooq, M. M., Alsareii, S. A., use ionized radiation at work. Molecular Imaging and
Aljerdah, S. A., & Al-ayed, M. S. (2018). Radiation awareness Radionuclide Therapy, 23(2), 48. https://doi.org/10.4274/
among physicians about the hazards of radiological mirt.00719