Radiologic Technology最新文献

Purpose: To explore the relationship between resilience, emotional intelligence (EI), and age in students enrolled in health care professional programs.

Methods: Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants by posting a survey link in health care courses at a midsized southeastern public university in the United States. The survey included 5 demographic questions, the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test, and the Brief Resilience Scale. A multiple linear regression model was conducted to examine the relationship between age, EI, and resilience.

Results: A total of 199 students participated in the study, consisting of 178 females (89.4%) and 21 males (10.6%). The collective study findings indicated a significant predictive relationship among EI, age, and resilience. The multiple linear regression findings were significant (F _2,194 = 58.48, P < .001, and R ² = 0.376), suggesting a predictive relationship among EI, age, and resilience. The coefficient of determination, R ², indicated that approximately 37.6% of the variance in resilience was explained by EI and age.

Discussion: The shortage in the health care workforce combined with increasing reports of burnout and attrition among workers emphasizes the critical role of education programs in preparing future health care professionals. Understanding the effect of EI and age on levels of resilience might help educators develop collaborative interventions. Educators should consider incorporating EI skills development in the curriculum to influence positive retention and clinical experiences for health care students that translate to their careers in the health care profession.

Conclusion: The significant predictive relationship of EI and age with resilience offers insight into the possible solution of increasing resilience skills by integrating EI in the curriculum.

Purpose: To investigate determinants of radiation safety culture among radiologic technologists to determine whether factors related to the primary imaging modality affect the perception of workplace radiation safety.

Methods: A secondary analysis was performed on deidentified data from 425 radiologic technologists collected with the Radiation Actions and Dimensions of Radiation Safety (RADS) questionnaire, a 35-item survey with valid and reliable psychometric properties. The data included radiologic technologists working in radiography, computed tomography (CT), and mammography. Descriptive statistics were used to report RADS determinant outcomes by imaging discipline, and 1-way analysis of variance and Games-Howell post hoc tests were conducted to analyze the hypothesis.

Results: Mean differences in the radiologic technologists' perceptions of teamwork across imaging stakeholders pertaining to radiation safety were found (P < .001). Mammographers had the most favorable perceptions of teamwork compared with radiographers and CT technologists.

Discussion: Collaboration in mammography between imaging stakeholders is dictated by professional practice standards and federal law. The resultant engagement might influence mammographers' perceptions of radiation safety. Additional research is warranted to determine if perception differences exist among technologists in other modalities and whether intentional collaboration drives improved perceptions of radiation safety culture.

Conclusion: An analysis of the collaborative actions in the mammography department is needed, and the findings could be applied in radiography and CT to improve perceptions of radiation safety-related teamwork.