DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

BEHAVIORAL CHANGES IN KOREAN ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS FOLLOWING BASIC EDUCATION IN MEDICAL RADIATION

  • Han, Eun Ok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety) ;
  • Kim, Jae Rok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety) ;
  • Kye, Suh Youn (Cancer Information and Education Branch, National Cancer Information Center, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Choi, Yoon Seok (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety)
  • Received : 2014.12.30
  • Accepted : 2015.02.06
  • Published : 2015.03.31

Abstract

by providing objective information regarding medical radiation for elementary, middle, and high school students in Korea, who are expected to have a high ripple effect in education, and by analyzing behavioral changes in the selection of medical radiation, this study aimed to deduce the basis for educational intervention. The tools used in the study were a questionnaire, including questions about perception, knowledge, attitude, and behavior toward medical radiation; video and Power-point materials for the lesson; simulated radiation diagnosis selection form; and radiation treatment selection form to find out about behavior. A post-test demonstrated that the objective knowledge about medical radiation of all the students turned out to be significantly higher (p<0.000) after the lesson compared to before the lesson. However, there were no statistically significant behavioral changes. Rather, for high school students, the behavior of selecting medical radiography and treatment was significantly lower (p<0.000) after the lesson. For the more impressionable children in the lower grades, the lesson must not only provide an opportunity to understand and pay attention to diverse viewpoints, but also encourage them to make ethical decisions based on value. Since it can be predicted that attitude or behavioral changes through education or publicity can be expected from adults older than high school students, issues regarding dangers like radiation exposure must be treated as an issue of value judgment predicated on multifaceted considerations.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Nuclear Safety & Security Commission

References

  1. U.S. National Research Council. Committee to assess health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. BEIR VII phase 2. Washington DC: National Academies Press. 2006.
  2. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Effect of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 2006 report to the general assembly with scientific annexes. Vienna: United Nations. 2006.
  3. Sodickson A, Baeyens PF, Andriole KP, Prevedello LM, Nawfel RD, Hanson R, Khorasani R. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology 2009;251(1):175-184. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2511081296
  4. Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(2):289-296. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289
  5. Brenner DJ, Doll R, Goodhead DT, Hall EJ, Land CE, Little JB, Lubin JH, Preston DL, Preston RJ, Puskin JS, Ron E, Sachs RK, Samet JM, Setlow RB, Zaider M. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. David J. Brenner. 2003;100(24):13761-13766.
  6. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(29):2277-2284. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra072149
  7. Valentin J. Pregnancy and medical radiation. ICRP Publication 84. Ann ICRP. 2000;30:15-19.
  8. Do KH. The health effects of low-dose radiation exposure. J Korean Med Assoc. 2011;54(12):1253-1261. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54.12.1253
  9. Cho DH. The study on regulation frame work to optimize medical exposure. Korea Ministry of Education and Science Technology, KINS/GR-459. 2011.
  10. UNSCEAR. Report of the united nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation: fifty- sixth session. General assembly official records sixty-third session supplement No. 46. United Nations. New York. 2008.
  11. Vano. E. ICRP recommendations on Managing patient dose in digital radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2005;114(1-3):126-130. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nch533
  12. Sung DW. Radiation exposure in diagnostic areas: issues and countermeasures. J Korean Med Assoc. 2011;54(12):1246-1247. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54.12.1246
  13. Medical Radiation Safety Act. California SB. 1237: radiation dosage. 2010.
  14. Lee W. Current status of medical radiation exposure and regulation efforts. J Korean Med Assoc. 2011;54(12):1248-1252. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54.12.1248
  15. Kim DK, Chun HW. Studies on the risk governing criminal law and criminology in the late-modern society(I): Comparative legal policy and criminal justice for risk management. Korean institution of criminology. 2012.
  16. Lee JK. Education and training in radiological protection for diagnostic and interventional procedures. ICRP Publication 113. Introduction of translation. 2011.
  17. Do KH. Current status of medical radiation exposure. Korean Journal of Pancreas and Biliary tract. 2013:18(1):63-66.
  18. Oh MY, Choi JY, Kim HS. Stigma effect of technology with risk : the impact of stigma on nuclear power on the perception and acceptance of products based on radiation technology. Communication Theory. 2008:52(1):467-500.
  19. Dulsik RE. Development of a factor analytic path model of the relationship between selected science- related attitudes in secondary school students. Doctoral Dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo, UMI No. 9222051. 1992.
  20. Runco, Mark A, Steven RP. Encyclopedia of creativity. Academic Press. 2011.
  21. Cushman F, Young L. The psychology of dilemmas and the philosophy of morality. Ethical Theory Moral Practice. 2009;12(1):9-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-008-9145-3
  22. Simonton DK. Creativity in science: chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press. 2004.
  23. Jang JY, Mun JY, Ryu HS, Choi KH, Joseph K, Kim SW. Korean middle school students' perceptions as global citizens of socio-scientific issues. J Korean Assoc Sci Edu. 2012;32(7):1124-1138. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1124
  24. Lee JS. The effect of media modality and the valence of risk messages on affective risk perception and behavioral intention. J Korean Cognitive Sci. 2012;23(4):457-485. https://doi.org/10.19066/cogsci.2012.23.4.002
  25. Morgan MG, Solvic P, Nair I, Geisler D, Macgregor DG, Fischhoff B, Lincoln D, Florig K. Power line frequency electric and magnetic fields: A pilot study of risk perception. Risk Analysis. 1985;5(2):139-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1985.tb00161.x
  26. Cho H. Lee JS, Chung S. Optimistic bias about online privacy risks: Testing the moderating effects of perceived controllability and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior. 2010;26(5):987-995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.012
  27. Sadler TB. Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education. 2004;33(3):339-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724042000733091
  28. Cho SK, Oh SK. A theoretical approach to derive perception indicator influencing the acceptability on nuclear energy facilities, policies. Energy Engg. J. 2002;11(4):332-341.
  29. Clement. CH. Education and training in radiological protection for diagnostic and interventional procedures. ICRP Publication 113. ICRP 39(5). 2009:1-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2009.09.002
  30. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In Paul Slovic. the Perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publication Ltd. 2000:390-412.
  31. Schlinger MJ. The role of mass communications in promoting public health. In B.B. Anderson(Ed) Advances in Consumer Research III. 1976:302-305.
  32. McAllister DJ. Affect-and cognition based trust as foundation for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management. 1995;38(1):24-36. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727
  33. Posch R. Maintaining public trust in the virtual organization world. Direct Marketing. 1994;57(1):76-80.
  34. McComas KA. Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. Health Communication. 2006;11(1):75-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500461091
  35. Arora R. Message framing and credibility: Application in dental services. Health Marketing Quarterly. 2000;18(1/2):29-44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J026v18n01_03
  36. Berry D. Risk communication and health psychology. Open University Press. 2004:1-167.
  37. Meyerowitz BE, Chaiken S. The Effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;52(3):500-520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.500
  38. Mcneil B, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New Engl J Med. 1982:306(21):1259-1262. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198205273062103
  39. Krille L, Hammer GP, Merzenich H, Zeeb H. Systematic review on physician's knowledge about radiation doses and radiation risks of computed tomography. Eur J Radiol. 2010;76(1):36-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.08.025
  40. Slovic P. Perception of risk from radiation. In Slovic P. The Perception of risk. London: Earth Scan Publication Ltd. 2000:264-274.
  41. Bu KH. An empirical study on attribution effects of public message and its psychological mediating variables. J Korean Advertising. 2001;12(4):7-35.