Risks of ionizing radiation exposure: Have patients been duped by internet misinformation?
Computed tomography scans are common in medical practice, but despite the exams having a routine role in patients’ diagnostic journeys, many individuals remain underinformed about the minor risks associated with CT scans.
While it is reasonable to assume that many patients have heard at least some bit of information about ionizing radiation, if they are not informed by someone directly involved in their medical care, the internet probably has had some bearing on their knowledge of the benefits versus risks of small doses of radiation exposure, authors of a new paper published in Cureus recently suggested [1].
“Controversy over which clinician is responsible for advising a patient regarding CT risk often means that patients are left uninformed and unaware,” corresponding author Monica Hemaya, a resident physician at Lister Hospital in the U.K. and colleagues explained. “Those who choose to seek further guidance online do so with the risk of encountering poor quality, difficult-to-read medical text, which may leave them even more confused or misinformed.”
The internet is a known breeding ground for misinformation, but political ideologies aside, how do common medical/healthcare platforms hold up in terms of providing patients with accurate information?
To find out, Hemaya and colleagues conducted an analysis of 180 websites that populated when searching with the keywords “CT risk”, “CT harm” and “dangers of a CT scan.” Each site was graded for readability based on four criteria, and the Discern tool was used to judge the sites’ quality and accuracy.
A total of 77 websites met the study’s final inclusion criteria. Of these, 66.23% provided content considered to be appropriate for Grade 8 level readers, while 59.74% met Grade 6 level criteria. Just over half of the websites met three out of four readability criteria, while 11.69% fulfilled all four.
The mean discern score was 3.58, which the authors explained meant that the average quality of the sites was deemed to be “fair.” The authors added that when they compared the performance of search engines, Google consistently performed the best.
The authors noted that some of the scores were borderline, and remarked that improvements are warranted to polish readability for patients seeking information on which to base informed medical decisions. However, the authors also indicated their results further emphasize the roles of physicians and radiologists in the informative process:
It is clear from the research that physicians and radiologists are perceived to have a responsibility to inform patients of the risks associated with CT scans, and to direct them to supplementary good-quality information and resources. The hope is that in the future, this will promote adequately informed decision-making amongst the patient population.”
In addition to her background in journalism, Hannah also has patient-facing experience in clinical settings, having spent more than 12 years working as a registered rad tech. She joined Innovate Healthcare in 2021 and has since put her unique expertise to use in her editorial role with Health Imaging.