Social Factors and Medical Imaging

One of the main reasons I chose nuclear medicine as my career is because of the patient interaction I have.  Unlike MRI or CT, I do not have to be outside of the room when the patient is being imaged.  Granted, it may not be the best idea to stand right beside the patient for the entire study because of the radiation they are emitting, but if the patient needs that support, we as technologists can stay there.  In addition, we have a significant amount of interaction with the patient even before the study begins—we take a patient history, explain the procedure, and perform the injection.  Because of our role in informing the patient about the procedure, we have a direct role with how the patient responds. 

However, various social factors also influence the patient’s response to the medical imaging procedure.  For instance, men are less likely to express their fear than women.  In the study conducted by Murphy, men who were completely terrified of the equipment and the entire process of the imaging procedure responded, “It was okay” (2001).  Because of the social expectation of masculinity, men are less inclined to share their apprehension because it may be interpreted as weakness. 

Another social factor that can influence response to a medical imaging procedure is social class.  Because people in the upper and middle classes experience more personalized care, they are more likely to get their questions answered, therefore reducing ignorance—or “fear of the unknown”—about the procedure and what to expect (Murphy 2001).

An additional factor that could change the way a patient responds to a medical imaging procedure is the amount of exposure to information about the procedure the patient has received.  A patient who has heard from their friends about a medical imaging procedure—whether their experience was positive or negative—will bring these preconceived ideas with them into the hospital.  In fact, these stories may be more significant to the patient than a pamphlet that the hospital provides about the procedure (Murphy 2001).  If the stories are accurate, then there is probably no harm done.  However, the stories are more likely to be misleading in some way, which may not be beneficial when the patient arrives to have the procedure done.  Additionally, there are common misperceptions in society about many imaging procedures.  For instance, in nuclear medicine, it is not unusual for patients to think that they will glow after being injected with a radioactive tracer.

It is clear that a variety of social factors can influence the response of patients who are receiving a medical imaging procedure.  In light of this, how should a technologist respond to these patients, each of whom have different levels of understanding of the procedure?  A good beginning is to individualize the exam to each patient (Glazer 2011).  Be willing to answer any questions they might have, and provide a thorough explanation of what the study entails.  What are some other ways that we as medical imaging technologists can accommodate for each patient to make them as comfortable—physically and emotionally—as possible during the procedure?  How does an understanding of the social factors in the patient’s life allow us to accomplish this in a better way?

References:

Glazer, G., and Ruiz-Wibbelsmann, J. (2011). “The Invisible Radiologist.” Radiology 258(1): 18-22.

Murphy, F. (2001). “Understanding the humanistic interaction with medical imaging technology.” Radiology 7: 193-201.