Radiography最新文献

{"title":"Reporting and methodological characteristics of qualitative research in radiology simulation-based education: A scoping review and thematic analysis.","authors":"A H Morrell, J M Harvey-Lloyd, B E Macpherson, N D Quinton","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2026.103555","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Simulation-based education is widely used in radiography and sonography training. Qualitative research offers important insights into student experiences, but methodological reporting remains a concern. This scoping review maps the reporting characteristics of qualitative radiology simulation-based education studies and examines how methodological decisions and features associated with qualitative rigour are reported.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Multiple databases were searched for peer-reviewed qualitative studies exploring diagnostic imaging students' experiences of simulation-based education. Data extraction was guided by the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. A thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke, was undertaken to examine patterns in methodological reporting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies consistently reported core elements, including title/abstract, aims, problem formulation, participant group, simulation context, data collection method, limitations and ethics. Reporting was variable for research paradigms, sampling rationale, trustworthiness, reflexivity, and analytic procedures. Three themes were generated: (1) Residual Positivism - reflects the influence of positivist assumptions in qualitative inquiry; (2) The Missing Researcher - illustrates limited reflexivity; and (3) Stuck in Description - describes thematic analyses that remain close to topic summaries or descriptive accounts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reviewed studies provide valuable insights into simulation-based education for diagnostic imaging students; however, methodological reporting was variable. The findings suggest limited engagement with qualitative paradigms, reflexive reporting and analytic decision-making, contributing to patterns of residual positivism and analyses that often remained close to topic summaries or description.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>Qualitative radiology simulation-based education research should prioritise transparent methodological reporting, explicit engagement with research paradigms, and reflexivity to support methodological coherence and deeper analysis. Engagement with non-positivist qualitative paradigms and reflexivity may support richer interpretations of students' experiences of simulation-based education.</p>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":" ","pages":"103555"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148892461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Virtual reality based mammography training in radiography education: learning outcomes and student confidence.","authors":"N Akyurt, E Bal, H O Tekin, W Elshami","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2026.103544","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mammography education faces challenges in translating theory into practice, developing technical and professional competencies, and limited clinical training opportunities. Virtual reality (VR) emerged as a potential adjunct tool to address these challenges. The study aimed to evaluate the educational impact of a VR-based mammography training program on learning outcomes, simulation design, educational practices, and student satisfaction and self-confidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study conducted among 62 students who completed the training. Learning outcomes were assessed using a 50-item Mammography Assessment Test (MAT) administered pre- and post-training. Student perceptions were evaluated using the Educational Practices Questionnaire (EPQ; range 16-80), Simulation Design Scale (SDS; range 20-100), and Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Learning Scale (SCLS; range 13-65).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Post-training MAT scores (75.73 ± 8.60) were significantly higher than pre-training scores (17.64 ± 5.89; p = 0.001), with female students achieving significantly higher post-test scores than males (77.80 ± 7.58 vs. 68.66 ± 8.37; p = 0.011). SDS (85.00 ± 7.51) and SCLS (51.50 ± 4.56) scores were high, reflecting strong perceptions of simulation design and learner confidence. EPQ scores (72.29 ± 8.30) were comparatively lower relative to the scale maximum, suggesting variability in perceived educational practices. A significant positive correlation was observed between SDS and SCLS scores, while no correlation was found between EPQ and other scales. Although most students preferred face-to-face learning, they reported benefits of VR in reducing anxiety and supporting skill development.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VR-based mammography training was associated with improved learning outcomes and high level of student satisfaction and self-confidence.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>VR-based mammography training is an adjunct educational tool in radiography education. However, optimal educational impact depends not only on simulation design but also on effective educational practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"32 7","pages":"103544"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148888785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Long-term efficacy and safety of helical tomotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma: A 10-year single-centre retrospective cohort study.","authors":"J Song, Y Wang, Y Di, X Kang","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2026.103550","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a heterogeneous biliary malignancy with a poor prognosis, and no standard radiotherapy regimen has been established. We evaluated long-term survival, toxicity, and prognostic factors in patients with CCA treated with helical tomotherapy (HT) at a single centre over 10 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-seven patients with CCA who received HT were retrospectively analysed. Disease was staged using the AJCC 8th edition. Overall survival (OS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using the log-rank test; Cox proportional hazards models identified prognostic factors. Toxicity was graded by CTCAE v5.0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients (58.2% male; mean age 61.4 ± 11.9 years) had iCCA (40.3%), hCCA (32.8%), or eCCA (26.9%); 61.2% had stage IV disease. Median follow-up was 13.0 months. Median OS was 14.0 months, with 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates of 55.0%, 30.5%, 19.8%, and 14.4%. Poor differentiation independently predicted worse OS (HR = 5.49; 95% CI, 1.48-20.41; p = 0.011). No grade ≥3 gastrointestinal toxicity occurred; one patient (1.5%) had grade 3 haematologic toxicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this heterogeneous cohort treated with HT, median OS was 14.0 months with no severe gastrointestinal toxicity. Poor histological differentiation was associated with worse OS. Given heterogeneity in treatment intent, stage, and systemic therapy, findings should be interpreted cautiously.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>In this retrospective cohort, HT was well tolerated in the acute setting, with no severe gastrointestinal toxicity recorded, supporting its feasibility in this anatomically challenging disease. Histological differentiation may inform prognostic counselling and patient selection but requires prospective validation. Prospective studies of dose-escalated HT are needed to define its role in multimodal management.</p>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"32 7","pages":"103550"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148876250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Social accountability in radiography: Moving from 'good intentions' to measurable impact.","authors":"M Abuzaid, W Elshami, M H Taha","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103462","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103462","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":" ","pages":"103462"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148145041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reframing advanced practice terminology.","authors":"M Clarkson, A Hancock, D Hodgson, A Jessop, R Khine, F McDonald, R Bryce, M Fowler, J Murray","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103484","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103484","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":" ","pages":"103484"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148473634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient-centred communication in radiographer education: A five-country comparative document analysis of curriculum and competency standards.","authors":"Y Komatsu, Y Chikamoto, K Tsukano, S Abe, S Tsudou, Y Yamamoto, Y Tanabe","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2026.103553","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient-centred communication is fundamental to radiographic practice, particularly when patients experience anxiety or uncertainty during imaging or treatment. However, it remains unclear whether broad communication expectations in radiography education and professional standards are translated into explicit, observable behaviours and integrated into education and assessment. This comparative document analysis examined the representation of patient-centred communication in selected national-level documents from five countries, using listening-related behaviours as an illustrative example.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Selected national-level curriculum, accreditation, registration, capability, and competency documents from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Japan were analysed deductively using a predefined extraction framework. The framework assessed communication competence, listening-related behaviours, patient-centred care, patient/family relationships, interprofessional collaboration, education, and assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Communication was addressed in all five selected national-level document sets, although institutional framing differed. It was framed as a professional competency or capability in the United Kingdom and Australia, a role-based competency framework in Canada, clinical competency and accreditation requirements in the United States, and primarily as curriculum content in Japan. Explicit observable behavioural expectations, such as listening-related behaviours, were uncommon. Listening was explicitly defined only in the Australian capability standards; elsewhere, it was represented indirectly through broader concepts, such as patient interaction, information gathering, and interpersonal communication.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The selected documents differed in the explicitness, structure, and educational integration of communication-related standards, without implying differences in education quality or clinical outcomes. Defining patient-centred communication through observable behaviours may strengthen alignment among professional expectations, learning outcomes, feedback, and assessment.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>Operationalising patient-centred communication as observable behaviours may enhance curriculum mapping, feedback, and assessment in radiographer education.</p>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"32 7","pages":"103553"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148876425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Artificial intelligence learning objectives in radiography education: A document analysis","authors":"D. Munro,&nbsp;J.G. Couto,&nbsp;J.L. Portelli,&nbsp;S. Mercieca,&nbsp;J. Azzopardi,&nbsp;C. Malamateniou,&nbsp;M. Montebello","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103546","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103546","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing healthcare delivery and radiography, impacting both practice and education. Despite its significance, there is limited agreement on educational priorities and curriculum organisation for radiographers. This study gathered relevant Learning Outcomes (LOs) for AI education in radiography from existing literature, structuring them according to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) model of Knowledge, Skills and Competences (KSCs).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A literature review was conducted systematically utilising PRISMA reporting guidelines, and thematic analysis was applied using Saldaña’s coding framework. Data were coded deductively with the EQF and open-coded to highlight further important aspects of AI education for radiographers.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Three major themes emerged: Knowledge, Skills, Competencies, with 15 subthemes. The recommended LOs for radiographers range from fundamental practice, such as patient safety, to advanced tasks like coding AI.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The variety of LOs identified suggests that AI education in radiography cannot be presented as one unified framework. Instead, educational approaches should reflect the different roles radiographers may have in relation to AI, ensuring practitioners at all levels gain the most relevant AI-KSCs.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><div>AI education should be embedded in existing educational structures, with tailored outcomes for specific AI-related roles. Ongoing research is needed to determine which LOs should be prioritised for roles and educational stages.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"32 6","pages":"Article 103546"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148814620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Gamification in radiography education: Impressions and perceptions from a european survey","authors":"N. Iosca,&nbsp;A. Lastrucci,&nbsp;C. Votta,&nbsp;L. Bernabucci,&nbsp;I. Maran,&nbsp;I.P. Monaco,&nbsp;S. Francioni,&nbsp;L. Marrazzo,&nbsp;Y. Wandael,&nbsp;R. Ricci,&nbsp;S. Pallotta,&nbsp;P. Cornacchione,&nbsp;C. Talamonti","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103548","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103548","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Gamification has emerged as an innovative educational strategy, but its implementation in radiography remains insufficiently explored. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of gamified methodologies among radiographers and radiography students across Europe, and to identify perceived benefits, barriers, and future opportunities.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A voluntary and anonymous 24-item survey was conducted and distributed during the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2025, and was available online for two weeks afterwards. The questionnaire comprised three sections assessing demographic characteristics and educational background, experience with gamification, and perceptions of its implementation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 143 participants from 16 European countries responded. Participants included students, clinical radiographers, and academics, with varying professional experience. 41.8% reported prior exposure to gamified learning and demonstrated significantly greater willingness to engage in future gamified continuing professional development. Gamification was perceived positively for enhancing engagement and technical skills (51.7%), teamwork (46.9%), and providing a risk-free learning environment (45.5%). Key barriers included limited educator knowledge (25.9%), development costs (25.9%), infrastructural constraints (24.5%), and resistance to change (21.0%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study provides an initial overview of European expectations and perceptions of gamification in radiography education. Although respondents recognised the importance and value of this innovation, significant gaps remain in its implementation and practical application. Further efforts at both European and national levels are needed to support these emerging educational needs.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><div>Gamification is a promising educational tool in radiography, but it requires targeted faculty development, further research, and strategic implementation to facilitate its adoption.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"32 6","pages":"Article 103548"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148819775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Installing a Linac is only the beginning: From access to implementation capability for advanced radiotherapy in resource-constrained settings.","authors":"M Daly","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2026.103541","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":" ","pages":"103541"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148814590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Radiographer (therapeutic) academic development and infrastructure for clinical advancement and learning (RADICAL): A scoping review.","authors":"C Marr, A Duffton, R Simoes, Y M Tsang","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2026.103538","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2026.103538","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical academic roles enable therapeutic radiographers (TRs) to integrate research and clinical practice, yet career development pathways remain poorly defined. Individual studies have examined research engagement among TRs, but a synthesis mapping the barriers and facilitators to pursuing a clinical academic career is lacking. This scoping review aimed to map the barriers and facilitators influencing TRs pursuing a clinical academic position.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework with reporting guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and MEDLINE and limited to English-language from 2004 to 2025. Two independent reviewers screened articles. Data were synthesised descriptively using narrative summaries and evidence mapping to group recurring concepts and barriers/facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies published between 2007 and 2024 across multiple countries were included. Five pathway themes were identified: professional support, organisational infrastructure, research culture, educational opportunities, and career progression. Barriers and facilitators were mapped to 11 of 14 TDF domains. Common barriers included a lack of protected research time, limited funding, workforce shortages, and unclear career pathways. Mentorship, postgraduate education, and organisational support were the most consistently reported facilitators. Equity, diversity, and inclusion emerged as a recurring theme.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TR clinical academic career development remains underexplored. Based on this review's findings, support for TRs should aim to include protected time, funding, mentorship, access to education, organisational research support, and equity-focused initiatives.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>This review highlighted the need for radiotherapy departments to prioritise coordinated strategies to support sustained TR clinical academic progression.</p>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":" ","pages":"103538"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2026-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148799536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}