Evaluation of Doctor–Patient Communication Regarding Medical Examinations Involving Ionizing Radiation: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Justification of medical exposures ensures that patient benefit outweighs the risks. The Western medicine philosophy and law emphasize the importance of informing patients about the risks of medical exposures as imperative for obtaining informed consent, especially in procedures involving ionizing radiation. This study investigated patient responses with regard to doctor–patient communication prior to diagnostic medical examinations that use ionizing radiation. Methods: A cross-sectional design was used, where convenience sampling was utilized during recruitment of adult patients who had recently undergone diagnostic medical examinations involving the use of ionizing radiation. Included in this study were patients who had undergone such examinations within the past 12 months or were prescribed examinations involving the use of ionizing radiation. Results: A total of 223 adult patients (aged 18 years and over [57% females and 43%]) participated in the study. The majority of patients (72.6%) were never informed by their physicians about the use of ionizing radiation in their prescribed medical examinations. However, 27.4% patients were informed about the possible risks resulting from their prescribed examinations. Conclusion: A noticeable deficiency in doctor–patient communication regarding the risks associated with medical ionizing radiation was established. Furthermore, patient involvement in the decision-making process concerning the choice of examination was found to be limited. Implications for Practice: Improved communication strategies can benefit both patients and clinicians. This can be achieved through provision of easily accessible reading materials on medical tests, explaining their advantages and disadvantages, thus empowering both patients and clinicians fostering shared decision-making.