Vienna, Austria

ESTRO 2023

Session Item

Other
5500
Poster (Digital)
Interdisciplinary
Perceptions of radiotherapy
Theresa O'Donovan, Ireland
PO-1063

Abstract

Perceptions of radiotherapy
Authors:

Theresa O'Donovan1, Billy Cashman2, Annemarie Devine1, Professor Mark Mc Entee1, Dr. Andrew England1, Professor Aisling Barry1,2

1University College Cork, Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, Cork, Ireland; 2Cork University Hospital, Radiation Oncology, Cork, Ireland

Show Affiliations
Purpose or Objective

Radiation therapy (RT) is an essential intervention to improve outcomes for many cancer patients. However, several international studies have shown that the public’s awareness of the benefits and risks of RT is low across all demographics. Of greater concern has been the finding that several misconceptions about the use of, and outcomes post, RT also exist amongst healthcare workers who do not work directly in oncology. This study aims to ascertain healthcare workers' and the public perception of radiation and radiation therapy within Ireland.  

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire was disseminated via social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn between January and March 2022 using Microsoft Forms. Twenty-one questions were selected from a previously published questionnaire to measure the extent of knowledge and misconceptions surrounding RT. Respondents were divided into groups – A - Those who previously received RT/had a cancer diagnosis, B – Those with a family member/close friend who had RT, C – no exposure to RT, D – healthcare worker not working in oncology. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel; Chi-squared and Student t-tests were used to assess the statistical significance of the results. Ethical approval was obtained from the University College Cork’s Social Research Ethics Committee (SREC).

Results

Of the 332 responders, 280 were deemed usable (84%). The majority of respondents were in group B (63%, 176/280). 30% of answers demonstrated certain misconceptions about the use, benefit, and risks associated with RT. However, responders with experience of cancer had a statistically higher aggregate score than those without cancer experience (p=0.05). Furthermore, healthcare workers performed statistically better than the public (P = 0.002) but showed wide variation in answers to individual questions.  

Conclusion

There is an ongoing need for accurate informational resources, support services, and educational interventions for healthcare workers and the public, focusing on those undergoing RT treatment. The crucial role of the practitioner in guiding patients through treatment is highlighted, emphasising the duty of care involved in caring for those who may have limited understanding or inherent misconceptions surrounding their treatment.