Online bests print at informing patients on imaging radiation—but neither shines at busting a certain myth

Patients readily assimilate information on radiation risks in medical imaging when the facts are presented interactively and online. In fact, in a new study, the electronic medium beat printed materials at helping patients understand ionizing radiation, know which imaging modalities use it—and even correctly rank the modalities by the relative radiation amounts each one emits.

The study was published online Jan. 20 in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Joseph Steele, MD, and colleagues at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, along with Stowe Shoemaker, PhD, of the University of Nevada, further found that participating patients overwhelmingly rated web-based interactive education on ionizing radiation “helpful” or “very helpful.”

On the downside, regardless of how the knowledge was imparted, participating patients struggled to grasp what specific risks such radiation poses: Around one-fifth of patients in both the online and paper group thought it could make them sterile.

Steele and team arrived at their findings after randomizing MD Anderson patients scheduled for imaging to receive the same information either over the Internet (interactive education group) or in print (document education group). They randomized a control group to receive no specialized education at all.

The researchers invited patients who completed at least some education, along with the control group patients, to complete a knowledge assessment.

They also asked the interactive education patients to indicate satisfaction levels with their learning experience.

Some 2,226 patients participated, and survey response was robust. Completed forms were returned by 302 of 745 patients (40.5 percent) participating in interactive education, 488 of 993 (49.1 percent) participating in document education and 363 of 488 (74.4 percent) in the control group.

“Patients in the interactive education group were significantly more likely to say that they knew the definition of ionizing radiation, outperformed the other groups in identifying which imaging examinations used ionizing radiation, were significantly more likely to identify from a list which imaging modality had the highest radiation dose, and tended to perform better when asked about the tissue effects of radiation in diagnostic imaging,” the authors report.

However, on that last point—tissue effects of radiation in imaging—patient understanding wasn’t significantly different between the online and print groups. This was evidenced by the nearly 20 percent of patients in each group who incorrectly named sterility as a risk of diagnostic imaging.

Nevertheless, in the interactive education group, 84 percent of patients said they were satisfied with the online learning experience. And nearly 80 percent said they would recommend the online program.

“We showed here that patients who used a web-based interactive education platform were more knowledgeable about the use and risks of ionizing radiation in diagnostic imaging than were patients who had received the same educational material in document-only format,” Steele et al. write in their discussion. “Patient satisfaction with the platform was high, and the platform was rated as helpful and considered an aid in making informed decisions, understanding complex topics related to medical imaging and navigating the diagnostic imaging experience.”

The authors add that emerging mobile and digital health technologies “seem to hold promise in educating patients and engaging them in their own care, with the potential to offer benefit in clinical specialties in which the benefits of patient engagement and education may have impacts on outcomes.”