↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ reaction to the ethical conduct of radiographers and staff services as predictors of radiological experience satisfaction: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
Patients’ reaction to the ethical conduct of radiographers and staff services as predictors of radiological experience satisfaction: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0062-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ogbonnia Godfrey Ochonma, Charles Ugwoke Eze, Soludo Bartholomew Eze, Augustine Obi Okaro

Abstract

Patients' satisfaction arises from their appraisal of experience in hospital services and measuring patients' satisfaction in hospital has become a global phenomenon. To improve on patients' satisfaction, radiographers have to imbibe the right ethical attitude in their conduct while discharging duties to patients during radiological examination. The objective of this study is to understand from the patients' perspective the ethical conduct of radiographers and radiology nurses that constitute factors in patient satisfaction during routine radiological examination. The rationale of the study is to use the findings to improve radiological service delivery and improve on patient satisfaction. This is a cross-sectional descriptive study in which 300 respondents (outpatients) in two hospitals were surveyed to ascertain their satisfaction with the ethical conduct of radiographers and services provided by radiology nurses in the department. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics at 95 % confidence interval for mean scores and Z-values. Three hundred patients responded to the survey which comprised of 145 patients from the public hospital and 155 patients from the private hospital. Radiographers fell short in some ethical/professional conduct as in informed consent before treatment (mean = 2.95); radiographers' not explaining his/her experience, expectation, knowledge and equipment procedure (mean = 2.98). However, they did well in some aspects including observation of professional boundaries with patients during treatment and equity in treatment for the patients during the radiological examination (mean score = 1.43). Some services provided by staff members in the department also fell short of patients' expectation and satisfaction including explanation of what to expect during the exam (mean = 3.30), whereas they did well in their level of courtesy to patients (mean score = 4.09). There was a significant difference in the satisfaction level experienced by patients at both hospitals in favour of the private hospital. There is an urgent need for improved ethical/professional conduct of radiographers and general service delivery in the radiology departments of the hospitals where this investigation was carried out to enhance patient satisfaction. Government has to improve the curricular of service providers in radiology service in the university to include ethical/professional conduct and patient/provider relationship.

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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 163 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 19%
Student > Master 21 13%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 55 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 44 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 17%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Philosophy 3 2%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 63 39%
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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#19,158,909
of 23,743,910 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#914
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,308
of 279,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,743,910 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 279,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.