In plain language
In a survey of 125 diagnostic radiographers in Mpumalanga, South Africa, most were issued dosimeters but only half reported always wearing them, a third received readings, and lead goggles and gloves were often unavailable.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Cross-sectional survey
- Who was studied
- Radiologic technologists
- Size
- n = 125 diagnostic radiographers
- Where
- South Africa
- Topics
- Personal protective equipmentDosimetry and monitoringSafety culture and complianceRegulation and policyTraining and educationPatient dose
- Summary based on
- the full text
What it found
Nearly all radiographers were issued a personal dosimeter, but only about half always wore it and one third always received their dose readings.
Key figures: 97.1% issued; 53.5% always wore; 33.3% always received readings
Dosimeters were most often placed under the lead apron regardless of apparel worn, contrary to guidance for apron-only use.
Key figures: 50.6% always under apron (apron only); 51.9% (apron plus thyroid shield)
Full lead aprons were almost universally available, while lead goggles and gloves were least available; availability of thyroid shields, gloves and goggles varied by hospital type.
Key figures: aprons 98.1%; thyroid shields 87.3%; lead gloves 53.9%; lead goggles 33.7%
Most referral forms lacked sufficient clinical history, and many radiographers never discussed incomplete referrals with radiologists.
Key figures: 64.8% insufficient history; 31.3% never discussed with radiologists
Two thirds felt their expertise in justification was undervalued due to hierarchy.
Key figures: 66.4% (n = 81)
Limits to keep in mind
Self-reported cross-sectional survey of hospital radiographers in one rural South African province, with distribution via department heads that may introduce selection bias; only about half worked in fluoroscopy and few in angiography or cardiac cath.
Related research summaries
- AAPM Report 58 - Managing the Use of Fluoroscopy in Medical Institutions (1998, Guideline or consensus statement)
- AST Standards for Ionizing Radiation Exposure (Guideline or consensus statement)
- ICRP Draft - Radiological Protection in Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures (Guideline or consensus statement)
- Radiation protection practices in diagnostic and interventional cardiology: Position paper from Portuguese Association of Interventional Cardiology (2025, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory (2011, Guideline or consensus statement)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the full text of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.