Scott Preston, Ruth M Strudwick, William Allenby Southam Cox
{"title":"Medical Image sharing: What do the public see when reviewing radiographs? A pilot study.","authors":"Scott Preston, Ruth M Strudwick, William Allenby Southam Cox","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2024.04.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Policymakers wish to extend access to medical records, including medical imaging. Appreciating how patients might review radiographs could be key to establishing future training needs for healthcare professionals and how image sharing could be integrated into practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A pilot study in the UK using a survey was distributed to adult participants via the online research platform Prolific. All subjects were without prior professional healthcare experience. Participants reviewed ten radiographs (single projection only) and were asked a two-stage question. Firstly, if the radiograph was 'normal' or 'abnormal' and secondly, if they had answered 'abnormal', to identify the abnormality from a pre-determined list featuring generic terms for pathologies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty participants completed the survey. A mean of 65.8 % of participants were able to correctly identify if radiographs were normal or abnormal. Results in relation to the identification of a pathology were not as positive, but still notable with a mean of 46.4 % correctly identifying abnormalities. Qualitative data demonstrated that members of the public are enthralled with reviewing radiographs and intrigued to understand their performance in identifying abnormalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the pilot, members of the public could identify if a radiograph is normal or abnormal to a reasonable standard. Further detailed interpretation of images requires supportive intervention. This pilot study suggests that patients can participate in image sharing as part of their care. Image sharing may be beneficial to the therapeutic relationship, aiding patient understanding and enhancing consultations between healthcare professional and patient. Further research is indicated.</p>","PeriodicalId":94092,"journal":{"name":"Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences","volume":" ","pages":"101423"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2024.04.016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Policymakers wish to extend access to medical records, including medical imaging. Appreciating how patients might review radiographs could be key to establishing future training needs for healthcare professionals and how image sharing could be integrated into practice.
Method: A pilot study in the UK using a survey was distributed to adult participants via the online research platform Prolific. All subjects were without prior professional healthcare experience. Participants reviewed ten radiographs (single projection only) and were asked a two-stage question. Firstly, if the radiograph was 'normal' or 'abnormal' and secondly, if they had answered 'abnormal', to identify the abnormality from a pre-determined list featuring generic terms for pathologies.
Results: Fifty participants completed the survey. A mean of 65.8 % of participants were able to correctly identify if radiographs were normal or abnormal. Results in relation to the identification of a pathology were not as positive, but still notable with a mean of 46.4 % correctly identifying abnormalities. Qualitative data demonstrated that members of the public are enthralled with reviewing radiographs and intrigued to understand their performance in identifying abnormalities.
Conclusion: In the pilot, members of the public could identify if a radiograph is normal or abnormal to a reasonable standard. Further detailed interpretation of images requires supportive intervention. This pilot study suggests that patients can participate in image sharing as part of their care. Image sharing may be beneficial to the therapeutic relationship, aiding patient understanding and enhancing consultations between healthcare professional and patient. Further research is indicated.