↓ Skip to main content

Nurses’, physicians’ and radiographers’ perceptions of the safety of a nurse prescribing of ionising radiation initiative: A cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Nurses’, physicians’ and radiographers’ perceptions of the safety of a nurse prescribing of ionising radiation initiative: A cross-sectional survey
Published in
International Journal of Nursing Studies, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.01.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abbey Hyde, Barbara Coughlan, Corina Naughton, Josephine Hegarty, Eileen Savage, Jennifer Grehan, Eoin Kavanagh, Adrian Moughty, Jonathan Drennan

Abstract

A new initiative was introduced in Ireland following legislative changes that allowed nurses with special training to prescribe ionising radiation (X-ray) for the first time. A small number of studies on nurse prescribing of ionising radiation in other contexts have found it to be broadly as safe as ionising radiation prescribing by physicians. Sociological literature on perceptions of safety indicates that these tend to be shaped by the ideological position of the professional rather than based on objective evidence. To describe, compare and analyse perceptions of the safety of a nurse prescribing of ionising radiation initiative across three occupational groups: nursing, radiography and medicine. A cross-sectional survey design. Participants were drawn from a range of clinical settings in Ireland. Respondents were 167 health professionals comprised of 49 nurses, 91 radiographers, and 27 physicians out of a total of 300 who were invited to participate. Non-probability sampling was employed and the survey was targeted specifically at health professionals with a specific interest in, or involvement with, the development of the nurse prescribing of ionising radiation initiative in Ireland. Comparisons of perspectives on the safety of nurse prescribing of ionising radiation across the three occupational groups captured by questionnaire were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Pairwise post hoc tests were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test. While the majority of respondents from all three groups perceived nurse prescribing of ionising radiation to be safe, the extent to which this view was held varied. A higher proportion of nurses was found to display confidence in the safety of nurse prescribing of ionising radiation compared to physicians and radiographers with differences between nurses' perceptions and those of the other two groups being statistically significant. That an occupational patterning emerged suggests that perceptions about safety and risk of nurse prescribing of ionising radiation are socially constructed according to the vantage point of the professional and may not reflect objective measures of safety. These findings need to be considered more broadly in the context of ideological barriers to expanding the role of nurses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 23%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Lecturer 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 15 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 29 March 2022.
All research outputs
#4,562,827
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#668
of 2,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,071
of 405,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nursing Studies
#14
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 405,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.