Radiographers' engagement in research is important for the development of evidence-based practice in radiography; however, radiographers' interest in research has rarely been reported. This study sought to ascertain radiographers' opinions about radiography research and investigate their involvement in research activities in four Nordic countries. This study was conducted in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. A study-specific questionnaire was developed in English and adapted to each language of the study sample, and the content and face validity of the adaptations were evaluated. An online tool was used to collect the study data. The questionnaire link was distributed in September 2019 to radiographers working in clinical settings in four Nordic countries (n = 4572). The overall response rate was 14% (n = 662/4572). Research involvement was reported by 33% of the respondents; data collection was the main type of contribution. Radiographers who contributed to research were more likely to be male, have longer work experience, hold a master's or doctoral degree, work as managers and be employed in university hospitals. Nearly all agreed that radiography research is needed to promote the radiography profession and provide the evidence base for radiographic practice. However, only 14% were aware of the current research evidence regarding their professional field of specialisation, and 19% indicated that they developed current practices based on research evidence. The findings indicate that, although radiographers had positive attitudes towards radiography research, their involvement in research and utilisation of research evidence in practice is low. Strategies should be developed to improve knowledge and skills related to evidence-based practice and stimulate radiographers' engagement in research.

It has been suggested that the future of diagnostic imaging relies on engagement in research and evidence-based practice. This implies a role transition from a clinical radiographer to a clinical radiographer-researcher. Clinical radiographers' stimuli for engaging in research in Nordic countries are unknown. This study aimed to address this gap. Cross-sectional data collection via an online questionnaire on facilitators for and barriers to participation in radiography research was carried out among 507 clinical radiographers in public healthcare in the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Support from colleagues (odds ratio [OR] 2.62) and other professionals (OR 2.74), and self-esteem in research skills (OR ≥ 2.21), were facilitators for radiography research. Lack of knowledge and skills to conduct research (OR 2.48) was revealed to hinder radiographers' participation in research. The absence of a radiography research culture in the workplace explained non-participation in research (OR 1.75). This study revealed significant factors for clinical radiographers' participation in research. A strategy for establishing a radiography research culture in healthcare is proposed that is novel for the context. Management support for knowledge development and activity leading to inter-professional research projects across knowledge fields, provision of a radiography research lead and acknowledgement of radiography research among colleagues signify the establishment of the culture. These prerequisites might provide a paradigm change towards not only the symbiosis of a clinical radiographer and an autonomous researcher but also a partner who adds radiography research to evidence-based practice in diagnostic imaging.

Unlike the technological advances in cross-sectional imaging, the adoption of CR and DR has been relatively overlooked in terms of the additional radiographer skills and competences required for optimal practice. Furthermore, projection radiography is often referred to as basic, plain or other words suggesting simplicity or entry-level skill requirements. Radiographers' professional identity is connected with the discourse expressed via the language used in daily practice and consequently, if the perception of projection radiography is regarded as simple practice not requiring much reflection or complex decision-making, apathy and carelessness may arise. The purpose of this narrative review was to raise projection radiography from its longstanding lowly place and re-position it as a specialist imaging field. Danish pre-registration radiography curricula contain little mention of projection radiography and a low proportion (n = 17/144; 11.8%) of Danish radiography students chose to focus on projection radiography within publicly available BSc. theses between 2016 and 2020 as compared to topics related to CT and MRI (n = 60/144; 41.7%). By changing how we as the profession perceive the role and position of projection radiography, we can start to rebuild its lost prestige and demand a greater, more detailed and clinically relevant educational offering from academic partners. For this to commence, the language and terminology we use to describe ourselves and tasks undertaken must reflect the complexity of the profession. Regardless of imaging modality, every patient should be assured that a radiographer with expertise in acquiring images of diagnostic quality undertakes their examination. Reclaiming the prestige of projection radiography may lead students and radiographers to recognize projection radiography as a demanding specialist field for the benefit of the patients.

This study examined whether ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography (ULD-CT) could improve detection of acute chest conditions. To determine (i) whether diagnostic accuracy of ULD-CT is superior to supine chest X-ray (sCXR) for acute chest conditions and (ii) the feasibility of ULD-CT in an emergency department. From 1 February to 31 July 2019, 91 non-traumatic patients from the Emergency Department were prospectively enrolled in the study if they received an sCXR. An ULD-CT and a non-contrast chest CT (NCCT) scan were then performed. Three radiologists assessed the sCXR and ULD-CT examinations for cardiogenic pulmonary edema, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pleural effusion. Resources and effort were compared for sCXR and ULD-CT to evaluate feasibility. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for sCXR and ULD-CT using NCCT as the reference standard. The mean effective dose of ULD-CT was 0.05±0.01 mSv. For pleural effusion and cardiogenic pulmonary edema, no difference in diagnostic accuracy between ULD-CT and sCXR was observed. For pneumonia and pneumothorax, sensitivities were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69–100) and 50% (95% CI 7–93) for ULD-CT and 60% (95% CI 26–88) and 0% (95% CI 0–0) for sCXR, respectively. Median examination time was 10 min for ULD-CT vs. 5 min for sCXR (P<0.001). For ULD-CT 1–2 more staff members were needed compared to sCXR (P<0.001). ULD-CT was rated more challenging to perform than sCXR (P<0.001). ULD-CT seems equal or better in detecting acute chest conditions compared to sCXR. However, ULD-CT examinations demand more effort and resources.

Complex interventional radiology procedures involve extensive fluoroscopy and image acquisition while staff are in-room. Monitoring occupational radiation dose is crucial in optimization. The purpose was to determine radiation doses received by staff involved in complex interventional procedures performed in a dedicated vascular or neuro intervention room. Individual real-time radiation dose for all staff involved in vascular and neuro-interventional procedures in adult patients was recorded over a one-year period using wireless electronic dosimeters attached to the apron thyroid shield. A reference dosimeter was attached to the C-arm near the tube housing to measure scattered, unshielded radiation. Radiology staff carried shoulder thermo-luminescent dosimeters with monthly read-out to monitor dose over time. Occupational radiation dose was measured in 99 interventional procedures. In many cases prostate artery embolization procedures exposed radiologists to high radiation doses with a median of 15.0 μSv and a very large spread, i.e. 0.2-152.5 μSv. In all procedures except uterine fibroid embolization radiographers were exposed to lower doses than those of radiologists, with endovascular aortic repair being the procedure with highest median exposure to assisting radiographers, i.e. 2.2 μSv ranging from 0.1 to 36.1 μSv. Median radiation dose for the reference dosimeter was 670 μGy while median staff dose for all procedures combined was 3.2 μGy. Radiation doses for multiple staff were determined and the ratio between staff dose and reference dosimeter indicated proper use of shielding in general. Some high-dose procedures may need further optimization for certain staff members, especially those not primarily employed in radiology. The study provides benchmark doses that may be used widely in audits and in the ongoing effort to optimize radiation protection for staff in interventional radiology.