Principles Of Radiation Protection Research Articles

Assessment of Knowledge and Awareness about Basics of Radiation and Safety Measures among Allied Health Science Professionals Including Radiographers and Students of Radiology and Imaging Technology: University Based Study

Aim & Objective-This study has been undertaken to assess the knowledge and awareness about basics of radiation and safety measures in diagnostic radiology among allied health professionals including, Radiographers, and students of Radiology and imaging technology. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire based survey was performed to collect data of knowledge about the radiation awareness and safety measures using in diagnostic radiology, among allied health professionals including radiographers, and students of Radiology and imaging technology. Result- Knowledge about principle of radiation protection was very disappointing, because 30.60% of the participants know the basic principle of radiation protection (Justification, Optimization, and Dose Limit). 43.40% participants said that, ALARA is the basic principle of radiation protection while 26% participants said that, TDS (Time, Distance and Shielding) is the basic principle of radiation protection. Discussion-Majority of participants needs to improve their knowledge about the radiation awareness and safety measure. Keywords: Radiation, Safety, Protection, Radiation awareness.

PACS IMPLEMENTATION ON PATIENT DOSE MANAGEMENT PROCESS AT SILOAM HOSPITALS LIPPO VILLAGE

PACS IMPLEMENTATION ON PATIENT DOSE MANAGEMENT PROCESS AT SILOAM HOSPITALS LIPPO VILLAGE. In order to provide services that prioritize patient safety, radiology department of Siloam Hospitals Lippo Village is committed to manage patient dose radiation. Radiation dose management applications is one of three principles of radiation protection, namely optimization. The determination of DRL (diagnostic reference level) is the application of the optimization principle. Radiation management includes several stages, starting from documentation of data inspection, data processing, data analysis, evaluation of local DRL. Consistent and systematic monitoring of radiation dose is needed to improve the quality of radiology services. Siloam Hospitals Lippo Village using PACS (Picture archiving communication system) in the process of documentation data. The documentation process utilizes the technote feature in the INFINITT PACS Software. By using an agreed writing format, the radiographer as a user writes a technote on the PACS which contains information including name, medical record number, weight, type of examination, estimated exposure factor (kV, mA etc.) and dose information (DAP, CTDI, DLP), KERMA water etc.). The patient dose data information has been adjusted to the BAPETEN Si-INTAN application. All of this stages require collaboration and consistency between radiology specialists, radiographers, medical physicists and the IT team. Through this method, dose management process can be made easier. This is because technote can be processed on excel worksheet. So that it can be said that using PACS technote has been proven to be able to make the radiation dose management process more effective and efficient. Keywords: PACS, DRL, Radiology, SI-INTAN, Technote

How Knowledgeable are Non-Radiology Doctors on Ionizing Radiation

Background: Due to the risk of hazard from ionizing radiation, non-radiology doctors who refer patients to the radiology departments ought to be knowledgeable enough about what their patients are subjected to. The high throughput of radiology requests in our centre in Nigeria justifies this study.
 Aim: To evaluate the level of knowledge of non-radiology doctors on ionizing radiation with a view to reviewing local protocols on justification of investigations involving ionizing radiation.
 Material and method: Eighty (80) structured questionnaires were administered to non-radiology doctors practising in different hospitals n Kano city, Nigeria. Answers were elicited on radiation protection principles, concept of ionizing radiation, radiation effects, imaging modalities that emit ionizing radiation, radiation measurements and attitude towards ionizing radiation.
 Results: Seventy questionnaires were returned out of the eighty sent out with sixty-four (80 %) being properly filled. Knowledge of non-radiology doctors was variable on different indices; 15.6 %, n = 10 (fundamental principles of radiation protection); 45.3 %, n = 29 (effects of ionizing radiation); 34.4 %, n = 22 (knowledge on ionizing property of radiation); 73 %, n = 47 (emission of ionizing radiation by computed tomography); and 85.9 %, n = 55 (interest in specific modality).
 Conclusion: Non-radiology doctors in Kano metropolis have fairly good knowledge of potential hazards of radiation.

How Knowledgeable are Non-Radiology Doctors on Ionizing Radiation

Background: Due to the risk of hazard from ionizing radiation, non-radiology doctors who refer patients to the radiology departments ought to be knowledgeable enough about what their patients are subjected to. The high throughput of radiology requests in our centre in Nigeria justifies this study.
 Aim: To evaluate the level of knowledge of non-radiology doctors on ionizing radiation with a view to reviewing local protocols on justification of investigations involving ionizing radiation.
 Material and method: Eighty (80) structured questionnaires were administered to non-radiology doctors practising in different hospitals n Kano city, Nigeria. Answers were elicited on radiation protection principles, concept of ionizing radiation, radiation effects, imaging modalities that emit ionizing radiation, radiation measurements and attitude towards ionizing radiation.
 Results: Seventy questionnaires were returned out of the eighty sent out with sixty-four (80 %) being properly filled. Knowledge of non-radiology doctors was variable on different indices; 15.6 %, n = 10 (fundamental principles of radiation protection); 45.3 %, n = 29 (effects of ionizing radiation); 34.4 %, n = 22 (knowledge on ionizing property of radiation); 73 %, n = 47 (emission of ionizing radiation by computed tomography); and 85.9 %, n = 55 (interest in specific modality).
 Conclusion: Non-radiology doctors in Kano metropolis have fairly good knowledge of potential hazards of radiation.

Biological and cellular responses of humans to high-level natural radiation: A clarion call for a fresh perspective on the linear no-threshold paradigm

There remains considerable uncertainty in obtaining risk estimates of adverse health outcomes of chronic low-dose radiation. In the absence of reliable direct data, extrapolation through the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis forms the cardinal tenet of all risk assessments for low doses (≤ 100 mGy) and for the radiation protection principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). However, as recent evidences demonstrate, LNT assumptions do not appropriately reflect the biology of the cell at the low-dose end of the dose-response curve. In this regard, human populations living in high-level natural radiation areas (HLNRA) of the world can provide valuable insights into the biological and cellular effects of chronic radiation to facilitate improved precision of the dose-response relationship at low doses. Here, data obtained over decades of epidemiological and radiobiological studies on HLNRA populations is summarized. These studies do not show any evidence of unfavourable health effects or adverse cellular effects that can be correlated with high-level natural radiation. Contrary to the assumptions of LNT, no excess cancer risks or untoward pregnancy outcomes have been found to be associated with cumulative radiation dose or in-utero exposures. Molecular biology-driven studies demonstrate that chronic low-dose activates several cellular defence mechanisms that help cells to sense, recover, survive, and adapt to radiation stress. These mechanisms include stress-response signaling, DNA repair, immune alterations and most importantly, the radiation-induced adaptive response. The HLNRA data is consistent with the new evolving paradigms of low-dose radiobiology and can help develop the theoretical framework of an alternate dose-response model. A rational integration of radiobiology with epidemiology data is imperative to reduce uncertainties in predicting the potential health risks of chronic low doses of radiation.

Evaluation of Fractionation Schemes in Breast Cancer Radiotherapy and Dosimetric Study of the Main Organs at Risk

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the impact of different breast cancer radiotherapy regimens on the acceptance of the tolerance criteria of the main organs at risk, the heart, and the ipsilateral lung.In this context, the dosimetric treatment plans of 20 breast cancer patients treated at the Radiotherapy Service of Braga Hospital were analyzed. The treatment planning system was the XiO (Elekta) and the dosimetric treatment plans were performed using with 3D-CRT technique (three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy) and the pencil beam algorithm for photon dose calculation.Two approaches to estimate the equivalence of different radiotherapy schedules have been proposed, the equivalent dose at 2Gy per fraction model and the biologically effective dose model. These models showed that the conventional radiotherapy course to 50Gy in 25 daily fractions is clinically equivalent to the hypofractionation course to 42,56Gy in 16 daily fractions.Obtained results showed that the tolerance criteria for the organs at risk, the heart and the ipsilateral lung, referring to the hypofractionation course to 42,56Gy in 16 daily fractions, are more restrictive than the tolerance criteria of conventional regimen. This means that if the same setup and the same dose coverage in the planning target-volume are used, the tolerance criteria for the organs at risk of hypofractionation regiment are more difficult to attain.These results can assist radiation oncologists in the evaluation of radiotherapy prescription doses for breast cancer, in compliance with the principles of radiation protection.

Radiation protection and safety in the nuclear medicine laboratory

Introduction: Nuclear medicine involves the handling and storing of radioactive materials known to pose a risk to human health. The size of the exposure depends on the radionuclide, the person’s activity and the type of one’s work in a nuclear medicine laboratory. Purpose: The purpose of this literature review is to investigate the contribution of radiation protection and safety measures regarding the protection of professionals’ health working in the nuclear medicine laboratory, as well as patients who undergo relevant tests. Methodology: The study material consists of recent articles on the subject mainly found in Greek and international databases as the Medline, Google Scholar and the Hellenic Academic Libraries Association (HEAL-Link). Results: In Greece, the principles of radiation protection are defined by Law 4310/2014. Radiation protection regulations are provided for the procedures as regards the implementation of a radiation protection system in general and regulation of all issues related to the protection of the professionals’ health exposed to radiation as well as for the issues arising from ionizing radiation during the activities referred to the protection of the general public by legislation. Conclusion: The control of radiation exposure in nuclear medicine not only for health care professionals, but also for patients and the public, can be achieved effectively through many actions being crucial to this direction.

How should radiation exposure be handled in fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures in the field of gastroenterology?

Fluoroscopy‐guided endoscopic procedures (FGEPs) are rapidly gaining popularity in the field of gastroenterology. Radiation is a well‐known health hazard. Gastroenterologists who perform FGEPs are required to protect themselves, patients, as well as nurses and radiologists engaged in examinations from radiation exposure. To achieve this, all gastroenterologists must first understand and adhere to the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication. In particular, it is necessary to understand the three principles of radiation protection (Justification, Optimization, and Dose Limits), the As Low As Reasonably Achievable principle, and the Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) according to them. This review will mainly explain the three principles of radiation exposure protection, DRLs, and occupational radiological protection in interventional procedures while introducing related findings. Gastroenterologists must gain knowledge of radiation exposure protection and keep it updated.

Establishment of Local Diagnostic Reference Levels in Conventional Radiography: A Pilot Study in Dakar, Senegal

Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) are indicators that allow assessing the quality of equipment and procedures from the point of view of the doses delivered to patients and subsequently initiate corrective actions if necessary. The purpose of this study is to encourage health professionals to investigate patient radiation doses and to determine whether those doses comply with the principles of radiation protection in medical fields so as to improve practices by reducing patient exposure without reducing clinical effectiveness. To perform this work, we have investigated patient doses for different radiological examinations from six (6) medical centers in Dakar, including the following nine routine types: chest (PA), abdomen (AP), pelvis (AP), cervical spine (AP), lumbar spine (AP, Lat), hip (AP), thoracic spine (AP, Lat). Three types of data were collected, i.e., X-ray tube machine data, patient data and output measurements. The data were analyzed statistically and the median, minimum, maximum, and third quartile values were calculated and displayed throughout boxplots graphs for all exams and medical centers. The two sigma range (95% confidence interval) was also checked. Comparison of third quartiles of Entrance Surface Dose (ESD) and Dose Area Product (DAP) by type of examination with recommended international DRLs was performed. The third quartile of ESD for pelvis (AP) and thoracic spine (AP) was up to 16% and 38% higher, respectively than their corresponding DRLs in the European Commission Report RP 180 Part 2. For all exams, except thoracic spine (lat), the third quartiles of the dose area product were higher than the corresponding DRLs in the above report. The source of dose variability between medical centers was related to many parameters such as poor radiographic techniques, lack of modern X-ray machines and adequately documented radiation protection practices. The results show the need to develop protocols for dose measurement as well as to carry out quality assurance programs and dose optimization in Senegal.

Study on Compliance with Radiation Protection Rules in the Medical Imaging Department of Pr Bocar Sidy Sall Hospital of Kati (Mali)

Objective: Evaluate the level of compliance with radiation protection rules in the medical imaging department of the University Hospital Center (CHU) of Kati. Methodology: This was a cross-sectional and descriptive study carried out in the medical imaging department of Pr Bocar Sidy Sall (BSS) Hospital of Kati. A questionnaire was developed and sent to the staff of the medical imaging department. The assessment focused on the radiation protection of personnel, radiation protection measures for patients, the delimitation and signage of zoning as well as the application of radiation protection principles. Results: Twenty-one people participated in the study, 90% of whom were men. The 30 - 39 age group was predominant with 61.90%. 33.33% of the staff knew the principles of radiation protection; 86% of our sample knew the basic rules of radiation protection. The majority of the staff in the imaging department (61.90%) had a perfect knowledge of protective equipment. For 76% of our workforce, the limits of the radiation doses received are regulated in Mali. 76% of those surveyed have not taken any additional training in radiation protection. The doors are closed during the X-ray examination for 76.19% of the respondents and 95% of the staff put themselves behind the sealed screen during the examination. For 81% of the respondents, the design of the premises met radiation protection standards. 62% of practitioners have a dosimeter and 80% of them wear it during their shift. For 62% of our sample, the change of the dosimeter is quarterly. The systematic request for DDR (date of last menstrual period) in women and the adaptation of the delivered dose to the patient’s morphology was only carried out by 65% of practitioners. The majority of staff (81%) did not benefit from medical surveillance, while for 55% of respondents the level of radiation protection in the establishment was average. Conclusion: This study enabled us to highlight the shortcomings in terms of radiation protection within the imaging department of the CHU Kati.

The practice of radiation protection in an interventional neuroradiology service.

Interventional neuroradiology procedures subject professionals who work in this area to high doses of ionizing radiation, and such exposure leads to a higher chance of occupational diseases related to this physical risk. Radiation protection practices aim to reduce the occurrence of such damage to the health of these workers. To identify how the practice of radiation protection occurs in a multidisciplinary team of an interventional neuroradiology service in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. A qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive research conducted with nine health professionals from the multidisciplinary team. Non-participant observation and a survey form were used as data collection techniques. For data analysis, descriptive analysis based on absolute and relative frequency and content analysis were used. Although some practices showed the use of radiation protection measures in practice, such as workers taking turns to perform procedures and continuous use of the lead apron as well as the mobile suspended protection, we found that most of the practices violate the principles of radiation protection. Among these inadequate radiological protection practices, the following aspects were observed: not wearing lead goggles, not using collimation to obtain the image, poor knowledge of the principles of radiation protection and biological effects of ionizing radiation, and non-use of an individual dosimeter. There was a lack of know-how of the multidisciplinary team working in interventional neuroradiology regarding the practice of radiation protection.

Suggestion for Improper Radiologic Examination Using Ionizing Radiation

영상의학 검사에 사용하는 방사선은 인체에 위해할 수 있으나 환자에게 도움이 되기 때문에 사용한다. 따라서 정당화와 최적화와 같은 방사선 방어원칙에 의거한 검사가 시행되어야 하며 필요한 만큼의 재검사만이 시행되어야 한다. 다양한 직종에 그 직종에 맞는 충분한 교육이 이루어져야만 방사선의 적절한 이용이 되리라 기대한다.

Awareness of radiation protection among dental practitioners in UP and NCR region, India: A questionnaire-based study

Background: Biological effects of radiation include deterministic and stochastic effects. Dental colleges still follow radiation protection principles due to guidelines laid by the Dental Council of India and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, but private practitioners sometimes are negligent about the significance of radiation protection. The study focuses on the awareness of radiation protection among dental practitioners based on their knowledge, attitude, and application. Aim and Objectives: The aim and objectives of this study were to evaluate the level of awareness and attitude about radiation protection among dental practitioners in Uttar Pradesh and the NCR region, India. Materials and Methods: The survey was performed on dental practitioners from UP and NCR region, India. The survey comprised two sections: one section on basic information of the dentists and their working place, consisting of two questions. The second section consisted of 21 questions regarding patient and personnel protection methods and knowledge about radiation exposure. The questionnaire was disseminated through Google Forms. Results: Among 200 dentists, 84% use Radio visual graph (RVG) in their clinics. Ninety percent of the specialists attended the basic lecture on radiation exposure, nearly 50% of the dentists use digital receptors in pediatric patients, 86% of the specialists use their hands when adjusting the X-ray tube, 98.4% of the dentists know the related complications of radiation, 46.8% of the specialists explain the radiation measures to the patients, 76.2% of the dentists use lead barriers in their clinics, and 76.2% of the clinicians often get their X-ray machines serviced yearly. Conclusion: The current study shows the utmost need for further implementation of radiation protection. The majority of dentists are negligent in practicing radiation protection procedures properly. Emphasis on radiation safety and mandatory professional education is needed.

Evaluation of Knowledge and Practice of Radiographers and Operating Room Personnel about Radiation Protection: Importance of Training Courses

Purpose: Awareness of personnel who are professionally involved with ionizing radiation on the principles of radiation protection is very important; especially for operation room personnel, because they do not receive radiation protection training during their university education in Iran. The aim of this study was to evaluate knowledge and practice of radiographers and operating room personnel about the principles of radiation protection. Materials and Methods: A validated researcher-made questionnaire was used and the study was conducted on 328 medical staff in 2021. Factors such as age, gender, university degree, working years, occupation, and knowledge and practice about radiation protection were recorded. The collected data were analyzed by independent t-test and Pearson correlation analysis using SPSS software. Results: The results of the study showed that age, gender and university degree have no significant effect on the knowledge and practice of radiographers and operating room personnel (p > 0.05). The knowledge and practice of radiographers were significantly higher than operating room personnel (p < 0.05). With regard to working years, there were significant relationships with the knowledge of personnel (p= 0.034), and with practice (p= 0.038). There was a significant correlation between passed training courses of radiation protection and knowledge (p=0.012), and practice (p=0.033). There was a significant correlation between knowledge about radiation protection and practice (p=0.002). Conclusion: It is necessary to encourage staff with lower working years and operating room personnel to participate in radiation protection courses and workshops. It can be suggested to add training programs about radiation protection in university education or in-service education for operating room personnel.

Management of nuclear materials containing natural uranium and thorium salts

This paper highlights an experimental model proposed for the management of nuclear materials containing natural uranium and thorium salts, based on technical and legislative methods. The investigated nuclear materials originate from laboratory chemicals with expired validity, having as manufacturers companies specialized in the manufacture of laboratory substances such as: Merck, Chemapol, Sigma Aldrich, Bucharest Reagent. The experimental program refers to several issues of great importance in the waste and environmental management, such as: a) the processing of radioactive substances containing nuclear materials and radioactive waste represented by solid objects contaminated with radionuclides from the radioactive series of U-238 and Th-232; b) gamma dose rate measurement during handling and processing of open sources of ionized radiation; c) measurement of suspicious contamination of the operating personnel which handles the equipment, including the materials used in the processing of open sources of ionizing radiation; and d) the inventory of nuclear materials according to the chemical formula, the mass of chemical substance, the mass of the nuclear element in each container and type of packaging. For the good development of processing these open sources of ionizing radiation containing nuclear materials, the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) was applied, which is fundamental to the principles of radiation protection. All the measurements for determining the gamma dose rate and suspicious contamination were performed with the aid of a CoMo 170 radiometric device produced by Nuvia Instruments Gmbh Germany, equipped with a 170x100 mm2 PL detector with zinc sulfide calibrated with the aid of C-14, Co-60, Cs-137, U-238 and Am-241 radioactive isotopes and an external probe containing a scintillating crystal with sodium iodide enriched with thallium calibrated with Cs-137.

Collar Badge Lens Dose Equivalent Values among United States Physicians Performing Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures

PurposeTo describe the range of occupational badge dose readings and annualized dose records among physicians performing fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures using job title information provided by the same 3 major medical institutions in 2009, 2012, and 2015. Materials and MethodsThe Radiation Safety Office of selected hospitals was contacted to request assistance with identifying physicians in a large commercial dosimetry database. All entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedure staff were excluded. Monthly and annualized doses were described with univariate statistics and box-and-whisker plots. ResultsThe dosimetry data set of interventional radiology staff contained 169 annual dose records from 77 different physicians and 698 annual dose records from 455 nonphysicians. The median annualized lens dose equivalent values among physicians (11.9 mSv; interquartile range [IQR], 6.9–20.0 mSv) was nearly 3-fold higher than those among nonphysician medical staff assisting with FGI procedures (4.0 mSv; IQR, 1.8–6.7 mSv) (P < .001). During the study period, without eye protection, 25% (23 of 93) of the physician annualized lens dose equivalent values may have exceeded 20 mSv; for nonphysician medical staff, this value may have been exceeded 3.5% (6 of 173) of the time. However, these values did not account for eye protection. ConclusionsThe findings from this study highlight the importance of mitigating occupational dose to the eyes of medical staff, particularly physicians, performing or assisting with FGI procedures. Training on radiation protection principles, the use of personal protective equipment, and patient radiation dose management can all help ensure that the occupational radiation dose is adequately controlled.

Establishing ionising radiation safety culture during interventional cardiovascular procedures.

The safety culture of an interventional laboratory was investigated in terms of the application of the three cardinal principles of radiation protection, namely distance, time and shielding. The application of these principles was observed and recorded with a radiation safety-culture checklist that was compiled by consulting international recommendations. The checklist evaluated the optimal compliance, especially with reference to monitoring of staff exposure, distance from the X-ray source, fluoroscopy techniques pertaining to frame rate, protective devices and personal shielding. The effective radiation dose was measured to the eyes, thyroid, hands and feet of the cardiologist, nurse, floor nurse and radiographer by means of finger dosimeters that were readily available from the local radiation-protection dosimetry service. The results, after observing 11 procedures, indicated the absence of table and ceiling-suspended shields, and the distance of the cardiologist's and scrub nurse's feet from the X-ray tube were between 16 and 68 cm, with a mean distance of 59.7 and 58.5 cm, respectively. Most staff (91%) wore the dosimeter inside the lead apron at the collar level without eye protection. The highest dosimeter values recorded were 0.73 mSv to the hand of the cardiologist, 0.45 mSv to the eye of the cardiologist, 0.65 mSv to the hand of the scrub nurse, 0.54 mSv to the eye of the scrub nurse and 0.52 mSv to the foot of the scrub nurse. The dosimeter value to the radiographer's thyroid was 0.42 mSv. The dosimeter readings confirmed the highest doses were to the scrub nurse and hand of the interventionalist. The safety culture was non-compliant in terms of staff distance being too close to the X-ray tube, the absence of ceiling and table screens, the theatre door not always being completely closed, and for staff without lead eye glasses, wearing dosimeters outside the lead apron at the collar level.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SELECTED INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY’S PRINCIPLES OF NUCLEAR SAFETY AND RADIATION PROTECTION IN POLISH NUCLEAR LAW

The subject of this study is the analysis of three selected fundamental principles of nuclear safety and radiation protection based upon the Polish and international nuclear law. In this article, the author characterises the substantive content, the normative meaning, as well as the legal basis of the legal measures implementing: the principle of prime responsibility for safety, the principle of role of government in the context of nuclear framework for safety, and lastly, the principle of leadership and management for safety. The interpretation and conceptual meaning of presented principles refer to the Fundamental Safety Principles, adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. On the basis of co-operation and voluntary harmonisation, the IAEA has formulated ten safety principles in order to achieve a fundamental safety objective, which is the protection of people and the environment from harmful effects of ionising radiation. Moreover, the national strategy and policy for the development of nuclear safety and radiological protection, as referred to in Article 39p of the Act of 29 November 2000 on Atomic Law1, requires, inter alia, the establishment of the principles of nuclear safety and radiation protection. Consequently, the relation between the Fundamental Safety Principles and the aforementioned strategy, as well as the importance of the principles observed in processes of establishing and applying provisions of Polish nuclear law are also analysed in this study.

Assessment of dentists' knowledge and practice regarding the principles of protection against ionizing radiation

Background: Today, the use of dental radiography equipment in dental centers has increased due to its high application in the diagnosis of dental diseases. As a result, concerns are increasing regarding repeated exposure to this low dose level of radiation. Therefore, the knowledge and practice of dentists about radiation protection are essential for themselves and the patients. This study aimed to assess the knowledge and practice of dentists about radiation protection. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed based on a questionnaire in several cities of Iran. The first part of the questionnaire included such information as gender, years of work experience, and participation in radiation protection workshops. The second, third, and fourth sections consisted of questions on radiobiology, radiation protection, and performance, respectively. Results: In this study, 94 dentists participated, and the mean scores of dentists (out of 5 points) for radiobiology knowledge, radiation protection knowledge, and performance were obtained at 2.66±1.1, 2.80±1.01, and 2.87±1.37, respectively. The results of Pearson analysis showed that general knowledge had a significant relationship with performance (P=0.014). There was also a significant relationship between the history of participation in radiation protection workshops and performance (P=0.01). Conclusion: It was found that more knowledge about the effects of ionizing radiation on the body and more awareness of the principles of radiation protection would help dentists to better observe the practical principles of radiation protection. Also, participating in radiation protection workshops could increase dentists' knowledge, and therefore, improve their performance.

Large differences in education and training of radiographers in Europe and Central Asia: Results from an IAEA coordinated study

IntroductionEducation and training of radiographers is known to be diverse between countries and regions. Under an IAEA project, this work collected data on radiographer education for the Europe and Central Asia region with a particular focus on radiation protection gaps and potential actions. MethodsFollowing piloting, an electronic questionnaire was distributed to all national counterparts for the IAEA Technial Coopearation (TC) Europe region (n = 33 countries) and nominated national representatives. Contacts were additionally invited to a virtual workshop to discuss and rank common problems in education and training of radiographers and to propose potential solutions. ResultsResponses were received from 31 countries, including 14 from the European Union. Just over half of countries reported radiographer education being in higher education with 71% having program durations more than 3 years (range: 1 month-4 years). Programs included a spectrum of both clinical training and radiation protection hours with ten-fold variations noted across the region. Inclusion of core radiation protection topics within curricula varied similarly, as did radiographers’ clinical involvement in both justification and optimisation between countries. Workshop participants identified five common training problems, namely education availability, lack of standardisation, radiation protection course quality, teamwork problems and lack of equipment. ConclusionRadiographer education in the IAEA Europe region is heterogeneous with substantial differences in duration and quality of training programs between countries, which likely impact on quality of patient care delivered. Common problems have been identified and potential solutions proposed to focus quality improvement initiatives. Implications for practiceRadiographer education and training is diverse throughout the IAEA TC Europe region, with likely impacts on radiation protection practices applied. Clinical involvement of radiographers in justification and optimisation differs, potentially limiting adherence to radiation protection principles.