↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of radiographers’ competences from the perspectives of radiographers and radiologists: a cross-sectional survey in Lithuania

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of radiographers’ competences from the perspectives of radiographers and radiologists: a cross-sectional survey in Lithuania
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0863-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aurika Vanckavičienė, Jūratė Macijauskienė, Aurelija Blaževičienė, Algidas Basevičius, Bodil T. Andersson

Abstract

Assessing radiographers' clinical competence is of major importance in all medical imaging departments, and is a fundamental prerequisite for guaranteeing professional standards in both nursing care and radiography. Despite the fact that self-assessment has been reported to be the most common form of competence evaluation only several studies defining the radiographers' self-assessment of clinical competencies were identified. The aim of the study was to evaluate radiographers' professional competence from the perspectives of radiographers and radiologists by applying the Radiographers' Competence Scale (RCS). The study was conducted in university hospitals of Lithuania. We used the original instrument designed by Swedish researchers - the Radiographers' Competence Scale (RCS) consisting of two domains: A "Nurse-initiated care" and B "Technical and radiographic processes". The study involved in all 397 respondents; radiographers (250) and radiologists (147) working in departments of diagnostic radiology. Each competence was evaluated twice - the level on a 10-point scale, and the frequency of practical application on a 6-point scale. The overall level of the radiographers' competence and the frequency of its use in practice were evaluated high or very high by both respondent groups. The radiographers attributed the highest evaluations to such competences as "Encouraging and supporting the patient" and "Collaborating with other radiographers", while the lowest evaluations were attributed to "Guiding the patient's relatives" and "Empowering the patient by involving him/her in the examination and treatment" competences. The radiologists attributed the highest evaluations to such competences as "Collaborating with radiologists" and "Independent carrying out of the radiologist's prescriptions", while the lowest evaluations - to the same competences as the radiographers did. Irrespectively of the work experience and age, the radiographers gave significantly higher ratings to all competences that the radiologists did (p < 0.001). Both groups of the respondents attributed high or very high evaluations to the competences in both the "Nurse-initiated care" and the "Technical and radiographic processes" domains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 18%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 4 4%
Lecturer 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 44 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Engineering 2 2%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 50 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,880,829
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,616
of 3,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,764
of 418,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#43
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.