Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Research Article

Patient Perception of Musculoskeletal MR: A Survey Research

Author(s): Elena Belloni*, Stefania Tentoni, Mariangela Valentina Puci, Chandra Bortolotto, Olivia Bottinelli, Michaela Cellina, Daniele Gibelli, Cristina Rosti, Giancarlo Oliva, Cristina Montomoli, Lorenzo Preda, Fabrizio Calliada and Paola Scagnelli

Volume 16, Issue 9, 2020

Page: [1154 - 1160] Pages: 7

DOI: 10.2174/1573405616666200107105743

Price: $65

Abstract

Background: When undergoing magnetic resonance (MR) exams, patients need to lie still in a noisy and enclosed environment for a long time. This condition, together with the anxiety burden related to the possible implications of the scan results, can entail a diagnostic outcome of poor quality.

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the personal perception and experience of adult patients undergoing unenhanced musculoskeletal MR.

Methods: Consecutive outpatients undergoing unenhanced MR of spine, knee or shoulder were asked to respond to a 10-item questionnaire at the end of the exam.

Results: 263 patients (54% males, mean age 50.6 ±15.8 years, range 18-83 years) completed the questionnaire. Patients declared that the most disturbing elements of the exam were forced immobility and noise (30% in both cases). Females perceived significantly higher degree of anxiety than males (56% vs. 21%, p<0.001). Exam duration was correctly perceived by 83% of the population. Patients’ satisfaction was generally high (mean above 9 over 10).

Conclusion: Explanations and clarifications given before the exam were considered satisfactory by the patients. Despite some negative aspects such as noise, immobility and anxiety especially in females, patients’ satisfaction with our service was high, as well as the willingness to return.

Keywords: Magnetic resonance, musculoskeletal, questionnaire, patient perception, anxiety, organization.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Hornak JP. (1996-2014) The basics of MRI. XVII..
[2]
Thorp D, Owens RG, Whitehouse G, Dewey ME. Subjective experiences of magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Radiol 1990; 41(4): 276-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(05)81665-4] [PMID: 2340700]
[3]
MacKenzie R, Sims C, Owens RG, Dixon AK. Patients’ perceptions of magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Radiol 1995; 50(3): 137-43.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(05)83042-9] [PMID: 7889700]
[4]
Dantendorfer K, Amering M, Bankier A, et al. A study of the effects of patient anxiety, perceptions and equipment on motion artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 15(3): 301-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0730-725X(96)00385-2] [PMID: 9201677]
[5]
Grey SJ, Price G, Mathews A. Reduction of anxiety during MR imaging: A controlled trial. Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 18(3): 351-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0730-725X(00)00112-0] [PMID: 10745145]
[6]
Törnqvist E, Månsson A, Larsson EM, Hallström I. Impact of extended written information on patient anxiety and image motion artifacts during magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol 2006; 47(5): 474-80.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02841850600690355] [PMID: 16796309]
[7]
Chapman HA, Bernier D, Rusak B. MRI-related anxiety levels change within and between repeated scanning sessions. Psychiatry Res 2010; 182(2): 160-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.01.005] [PMID: 20409694]
[8]
Munn Z, Jordan Z. Interventions to reduce anxiety, distress and the need for sedation in adult patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review. Int J Evid-Based Healthc 2013; 11(4): 265-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1744-1609.12045] [PMID: 24298920]
[9]
Tazegul G, Etcioglu E, Yildiz F, Yildiz R, Tuney D. Can MRI related patient anxiety be prevented? Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 33(1): 180-3.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2014.08.024] [PMID: 25172986]
[10]
Thu H, Stutzman SE, Supnet C, Olson DM. Factors associated with increased anxiety in the MRI waiting room. J Radiol Nurs 2015; 34: 170-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jradnu.2015.04.009]
[11]
Lo Re G, De Luca R, Muscarneri F, et al. Relationship between anxiety level and radiological investigation. Comparison among different diagnostic imaging exams in a prospective single-center study. Radiol Med 2016; 121(10): 763-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0664-z] [PMID: 27334010]
[12]
Carlsson S, Carlsson E. The situation and the uncertainty about the coming result scared me but interaction with the radiographers helped me through: A qualitative study on patients’ experiences of magnetic resonance imaging examinations. J Clin Nurs 2013; 22: 3225-34.
[13]
Munn Z, Pearson A, Jordan Z, Murphy F, Pilkington D, Anderson A. Patient anxiety and satisfaction in a magnetic resonance imaging department: initial results from an action research study. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2015; 46(1): 23-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2014.07.006] [PMID: 31052060]
[14]
Andreisek G. Evaluation of patient comfort and image quality in magnetic resonance imaging ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02726594. Accessed 14th April 2019..
[15]
Mohammed EK, Atef J, Ellife HA. Effectiveness of health instructions on reducing anxiety levels and claustrophobia among female adolescents undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Res Commun 2013; 1(5): 43-64.
[16]
Tugwell JR, Goulden N, Mullins P. Alleviating anxiety in patients prior to MRI: A pilot single-centre single-blinded randomised controlled trial to compare video demonstration or telephone conversation with a radiographer versus routine intervention. Radiography (Lond) 2018; 24(2): 122-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2017.10.001] [PMID: 29605108]
[17]
Tugwell-Allsup J, Pritchard AW. The experience of patients participating in a small randomised control trial that explored two different interventions to reduce anxiety prior to an MRI scan. Radiography (Lond) 2018; 24(2): 130-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2017.11.001] [PMID: 29605109]
[18]
Donner NC, Lowry CA. Sex differences in anxiety and emotional behavior. Pflugers Arch 2013; 465(5): 601-26.

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy