Clinical decisions-making within diagnostic radiography - A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and synthesise literature on clinical decision-making within diagnostic radiography, to uncover the important elements, and to identify knowledge gaps for further investigation. The scoping review question was: How do diagnostic radiographers make clinical decisions? KEY FINDINGS: Radiographers make clinical decisions before, during and after examinations. The primary source of information radiographers use is the clinical request, however, if they doubt something, they rely on their colleague's points of view rather than evidence-based practice. Many elements must be considered in the clinical decision-making process; however, lack of autonomy, sparse information on the clinical requests, and lack of time affect the process, which can lead to a barrier to effective decision-making. CONCLUSION: Clinical decisions are made based on many different elements before, during, and after examinations in combination with different types of knowledge, as well as technical and organisational aspects within radiography clinical practice. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: There is a need to focus on giving more attention to developing the decision-making elements. In addition, there must be more focus on improving intra-professional work between radiographers and radiologists to facilitate radiographers' opportunities to act on their clinical decisions.

Facilitators for and barriers to radiography research in public healthcare in Nordic countries.

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: This study revealed significant factors for clinical radiographers' participation in research. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: 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.

Magnetic resonance therapy in the treatment of osteoarthritis: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To primarily assess the existing literature about Magnetic Resonance Therapy (MRT) or Molecular Biophysical Stimulation Therapy (MBST) in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). The scoping review question was: What has been reported about MRT or MBST concerning treatment of patients with OA? KEY FINDINGS: The applied treatment program consisted of one hour daily treatment for patients in all the included studies. In terms of duration of treatment, four studies suggested treatment for nine consecutive days, two for five days and one study reported treatment on weekdays for two weeks. Six of the studies investigated the effect of MRT on the knee and one study for finger, ankle, and hip, respectively. Consensus across studies was that MRT had a positive, almost always significant, effect. Six out of the seven studies had subjective outcome measurements such as pain, quality of life and joint function, which were measured through self-reported questionnaires. One study combined ultrasonography with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to evaluate structural joint changes. This evaluation was performed by a radiologist. One study used objective measurement of cartilage thickness through a minimal distance algorithm. All tests used MBST-systems. CONCLUSION: This scoping review showed that there seems to be a beneficial effect of MRT in the treatment of patients with OA in relation to improvement in pain, joint function, and quality of life. However, more robust research and further evaluation of MRT are needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Treating patients diagnosed with OA with MRT for one hour for five to ten days seemed to improve pain, joint function, quality of life as well as regeneration of cartilage. However, limitations of the included studies in this scoping review, such as a general lack of control groups, low sample sizes, lack of control for confounding factors such as medication, calls for more robust research with stronger study designs.

Radiographers' involvement in research activities and opinions on radiography research: A Nordic survey.

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Strategies should be developed to improve knowledge and skills related to evidence-based practice and stimulate radiographers' engagement in research.