Posted: March 10th, 2015

Descriptive was due to the facts finding nature of questions included in the questionnaire and Analytical especially cross sectional due to the statistical tools used to collect and analyze data.

Material and Methods

 

Study Design

The study was a Combination of Descriptive and Analytical in nature. Descriptive was due to the facts finding nature of questions included in the questionnaire and Analytical especially cross sectional due to the statistical tools used to collect and analyze data. The study also categorized as retrospective questionnaire studies that included Ophthalmologist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in between October 2014 until December 2014.

 

Questionnaire Design

A combination of open ended and close ended structured questions have been designed by the researcher after going through the review of literature and review by academic staff and an Ophthalmologist to collect the information from the Ophthalmologist in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To check the accessibility and understanding of the questions pilot survey have been conducted at King Khalid University. Some questions have been modified and some were deleted from the questionnaire.

 

Validity of Questionnaire

To check the content validity expert opinion have been taken and their comments have been incorporated in the questionnaire. The final questionnaire consist 9 close ended structured questions with multiple options and 2 open ended structured questions.

 

Sample Size and Data Collection

462 questions were distributed among the ophthalmologist in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through monkeys in October 2014. Monkey is a one of the important authenticated online portal to collect information across worldwide. Till the end of December 2014, total 46 (10%) respondents have been responded. Out of 46 responses some were either incomplete or not attempted by the respondent and hence incomplete and not attempted questionnaire were skipped from the final analysis of data. Finally 39 responses have been found appropriate for further analysis of data.

 

Reliability of Data

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Index was used to evaluate internal consistency of each construct of a questionnaire. As per the suggestions of Hair et al. (1998), Cronbach’s Alpha have been calculated with the help of SPSS version 20 and found more than 0.9 and hence it was considered as excellent for data analysis.

 

Statistical Tools

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20 has been used to analyze data. Descriptive Statistics like frequency, cumulative and relative frequency have been calculated of each construct of a questionnaire. Comparison between the various groups has been made with the help of graphs for better, sound and easy understanding. Chi Square test have been used to check the existence of any significant association between groups or not. The Chi square test was also helpful in comparing the results in terms of expected outcome and actual outcome of the response. The level of significance was 0.05 or 0.95 was the confidence interval was taken into consideration to test the hypothesis in this study.

 

 

Results

Data were analyzed with the help of SPSS and the main outcomes of the data are as under. The first question of the questionnaire starts with the open ended question about highest academic qualification of the respondents. Due to open ended question responses are vague and even 11 respondents out of 39 have not responded to this question. But those who have responded about their qualification, among those most common are Board, Ph.D, Fellowship, FRCSC, M.D, MPH and MRCS.

 

The second question has been asked from the respondents as how many years of experiences. The brief outcome has been depicted in the following table – 1. As illustrated in the following table more than 90% respondents have 10 years or more experience. It is good for the study because most of the respondents are experienced enough. It will help in assessing the ophthalmologist knowledge towards CT radiation dosages in children.

 

Table – 1: How many years of your experience?
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	Less Than One Year	1	2.6	2.6	2.6
	11 – 20 years	12	30.8	30.8	33.3
	6 – 10 years	10	25.6	25.6	59.0
	More than 20 years	14	35.9	35.9	94.9
	01 – 5 years	2	5.1	5.1	100.0
	Total	39	100.0	100.0

 

The first main question to assess the knowledge towards CT radiation dosage in children among ophthalmologist has started from third question in the questionnaire. Radiation doses delivered to the patient from requested CT studies in your department have been asked from the ophthalmologist from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and their responses have been depicted in the following table – 2.

 

Table – 2: Radiation doses delivered to patient from requested CT studies in your department?
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	No	22	56.4	56.4	56.4
	Yes	17	43.6	43.6	100.0
	Total	39	100.0	100.0

 

The outcome of the data as depicted in table – 2 and figure – 1 illustrates that more than 50% ophthalmologist did not delivered radiation doses to the patient from requested  CT studies in their department.

 

The second main question to assess the knowledge towards CT radiation dosage in children among ophthalmologist have  been asked as alternative medical imaging investigation other than CT in your department. The outcome of the data demonstrated in the following table – 3.

 

Table – 3: Alternative medical imaging investigation other than CT in your department?
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	No	3	7.7	7.7	7.7
	Yes	36	92.3	92.3	100.0
	Total	39	100.0	100.0

 

It is evident from the above table that more than 90% respondents consider alternative medical imaging investigation other than CT in their department.

 

The third main question to assess the knowledge towards CT radiation dosage in children among ophthalmologist has been asked as familiar with the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle and the outcome of the data have been displayed in the following table – 4 and Fig – 2.

 

Table – 4: Familiar with the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle?
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	No	33	84.6	84.6	84.6
	Yes	6	15.4	15.4	100.0
	Total	39	100.0	100.0

 

 

As illustrated in above table – 4 and Fig – 2 that 33 respondents out of 39 or around 85% respondents did not familiar with the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle.

 

Table – 5: Aware of any scientific study suggesting a link between radiation exposure during a CT scan and an increased risk of developing a malignant tumor in later life?
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	No	14	35.9	35.9	35.9
	Yes	25	64.1	64.1	100.0
	Total	39	100.0	100.0

 

The fourth main question to assess the knowledge towards CT radiation dosage in children among ophthalmologist has been asked as Awareness of any scientific study suggesting a link between radiation exposure during a CT scan and an increased risk of developing a malignant tumor in later life and the outcome of the data have been displayed in table – 5 and Fig – 3.

 

 

It is evident from table – 5 and figure – 3 that around 36% (14 out of 39) respondents are unaware about any scientific study suggesting a link between radiation exposure during a CT scan and an increased risk of developing a malignant tumor in later life.

 

The fifth main question to assess the knowledge towards CT radiation dosage in children among ophthalmologist has been asked as have you had courses in the area of radiation protection of CT examinations and the outcome of the data have been displayed in table – 6.

 

Table – 6: Have you had courses in the area of radiation protection of CT examinations?
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	No	34	87.2	87.2	87.2
	Yes	5	12.8	12.8	100.0
	Total	39	100.0	100.0

As depicted in the table – 6 that majority around 87% (34 out of 39) respondents did not have any courses in the area of radiation protection of CT examination.

 

The sixth main question to assess the knowledge towards CT radiation dosage in children among ophthalmologist has been asked as your estimate of the average absorbed dose of patient’s lens of the eye from head examination and the outcome of the data have been displayed in table – 7 and figure – 4.

 

Table – 7: Your estimate of the average absorbed dose of patient’s lens of the eye from head examination?
		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Valid	No Response	14	35.9	35.9	35.9
	0	5	12.8	12.8	48.7
	1	20	51.3	51.3	100.0
	Total	39	100.0	100.0

 

 

It is evident from table – 7 and figure – 4 that around 36% (14 out of 39) respondents did not responded to this question, while around 13% (5 out of 39) responded that zero average absorb dosage of patient lens of the eye from head examination. Around 50% (20 out of 39) respondents responded that one as average absorb dosage of patient lens of the eye from head examination.

 

 

Crosstab
		Any scientific study suggesting a link between radiation exposure during a CT scan and an increased risk of developing a malignant tumor in later life?		Total
		No	Yes
How many years of your experience?	0 -1 years	1	0	1
	11–20 years	5	7	12
	6–10 years	5	5	10
	More than 20 years	3	11	14
	01–5 years	0	2	2
Total		14	25	39

 

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	5.217a	4	.266
Likelihood Ratio	6.209	4	.184
N of Valid Cases	39
6 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .36.

 

 

Crosstab
		Familiar with the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle?		Total
		No	Yes
How many years of your experience?		1	0	1
	11–20 years	11	1	12
	6–10 years	6	4	10
	More than 20 years	13	1	14
	01–5 years	2	0	2
Total		33	6	39

 

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	6.389a	4	.172
Likelihood Ratio	5.938	4	.204
N of Valid Cases	39
7 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .15.

 

 

Crosstab
		Radiation dose to the eye lens is necessary for the production of radiation injuries according to the recent accepted threshold of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).			Total
		No Response	0	1
How many years of your experience?		1	0	0	1
	11–20 years	4	2	6	12
	6–10 years	1	5	4	10
	More than 20 years	8	3	3	14
	01–5 years	1	0	1	2
Total		15	10	14	39

 

 

Chi-Square Tests
	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	10.067a	8	.260
Likelihood Ratio	11.219	8	.190
N of Valid Cases	39
13 cells (86.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .26.

 

 

For a custom paper to the above topic, place your Order Now!!

What We Offer:
• On-time delivery guarantee
• PhD-level professionals
• Automatic plagiarism check
• 100% money-back guarantee
• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality
• High Quality custom-written papers