Parental knowledge and attitudes towards dental radiography for children
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Radiographs are an essential part of most clinical dental examinations and diagnoses. The aim of the study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes of parents towards dental radiographs for their children. METHODS: A 21-item questionnaire, covering parental level of radiation knowledge and socio-demographics was applied. Sliding scales were used to assess attitude towards dental radiographs. RESULTS: There were 1467 questionnaires distributed between five primary schools in the Perth (Western Australia) metropolitan area, with 309 surveys (21%) returned for collection. Most parents displayed a low level of knowledge, but had a positive attitude towards dental radiographs. Parents with children who have previously had dental radiographs perceived dental radiographs as 'good', 'useful' and 'pleasant'. A higher level of education and parents with children who have previously had radiographs were significantly associated with a higher level of knowledge about dental radiography. Parents who had higher scores on questions assessing radiation knowledge were more likely to perceive dental radiographs as 'safe' and 'beneficial'. CONCLUSIONS: Most parents have a positive attitude towards dental radiographs on their children. However, the majority of parents lack knowledge regarding dental radiography, especially regarding the risks involved.
SourceAvailable from: Paul Vincent Abbott
Article: Are dental; radiographs safe?[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Dental patients are often aware that radiation has the potential to harm them but they do not usually understand how or why and what potential harmful effects may arise from dental radiographs. The potential for undesirable effects must be balanced against the benefits obtained from radiographs. Dentists should address the concerns of patients who question the need for radiographs and allow them to make an informed decision. Data are available that relate radiation exposure levels from medical and dental radiographs to normal background exposure levels and allow comparisons with everyday risks in life. Recognized radiation authorities publish guidelines to help dentists with their use of radiographs, although, due to the time lag associated with testing and the publication of results, some of the published data may not always be entirely relevant to currently used X-ray machines and techniques. Dentists also have professional obligations not only to limit the use of radiographs to potentially beneficial situations but also to take good quality diagnostic radiographs, to limit the doses used, to use good radiation safety measures and to use modern equipment to achieve the best possible films. Radiographs must then be properly developed and viewed under appropriate conditions to gain the maximum possible diagnostic information from each exposure.Australian Dental Journal 08/2000; 45(3):208 - 213. DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2000.tb00559.x · 1.48 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patients perceptions of risk for harm influence their decisions concerning medical procedures and feelings of satisfaction with medical care choices. Radiologic technologists, dental hygienists, and other allied health professionals frequently are asked by patients to explain the radiation exposure dose and health risk associated with an imaging procedure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiation risk perceptions within the community to develop an effective patient education strategy for health professionals based on the responses of 200 participants in a cross-sectional survey. Less than half of the adults responding to the survey agreed with experts regarding the risk of radiation exposure from various sources, and 75% to 90% of the responders thought that imaging providers should be highly educated and highly regulated. With efficacious patient education, appropriate risk comparisons can be made in simple terminology by addressing the public's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes toward sources of radiation exposure.Journal of allied health 02/2002; 31(3):159-64.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the awareness level concerning radiation dose and possible risks associated with computed tomographic (CT) scans among patients, emergency department (ED) physicians, and radiologists. Adult patients seen in the ED of a U.S. academic medical center during a 2-week period with mild to moderate abdominopelvic or flank pain and who underwent CT were surveyed after acquisition of the CT scan. Patients were asked whether or not they were informed about the risks, benefits, and radiation dose of the CT scan and if they believed that the scan increased their lifetime cancer risk. Patients were also asked to estimate the radiation dose for the CT scan compared with that for one chest radiograph. ED physicians who requested CT scans and radiologists who reviewed the CT scans were surveyed with similar questions and an additional question regarding the number of years in practice. The chi(2) test of independence was used to compare the three respondent groups regarding perceived increased cancer risk from one abdominopelvic CT scan. Seven percent (five of 76) of patients reported that they were told about risks and benefits of their CT scan, while 22% (10 of 45) of ED physicians reported that they had provided such information. Forty-seven percent (18 of 38) of radiologists believed that there was increased cancer risk, whereas only 9% (four of 45) of ED physicians and 3% (two of 76) of patients believed that there was increased risk (chi(2)(2) = 41.45, P <.001). All patients and most ED physicians and radiologists were unable to accurately estimate the dose for one CT scan compared with that for one chest radiograph. Patients are not given information about the risks, benefits, and radiation dose for a CT scan. Patients, ED physicians, and radiologists alike are unable to provide accurate estimates of CT doses regardless of their experience level.Radiology 05/2004; 231(2):393-8. DOI:10.1148/radiol.2312030767 · 6.21 Impact Factor