Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The patient experience of musculoskeletal imaging tests for investigation of inflammatory arthritis: a mixed-methods study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to understand the patient experience of musculoskeletal imaging tests for investigation of inflammatory arthritis and factors that contribute to this experience. We conducted a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 33 patients who had a recent peripheral joint musculoskeletal imaging test for investigation of inflammatory arthritis. Data from these interviews were used to generate an 18-item questionnaire which was posted to rheumatology clinic patients within 6 weeks of peripheral joint imaging. Variables associated with the overall experience of the test were analysed using stepwise linear regression. Analysis of the interviews identified six themes: knowledge about the test, awareness of potential harm, the role of imaging in clinical care, discomfort, experience of waiting and ‘seeing is believing’. Completed questionnaires were available from 132 patients. In regression analysis, a strong negative association was observed between the ‘discomfort during the test’ item and the overall experience of the test (standardised beta −0.35, p < 0.001). ‘Staff made the experience better’ (0.26, p < 0.001) and ‘information provided’ (0.28, p < 0.001) were positively associated with the overall experience of the test. For those who viewed their images, ‘looking at the images with my doctor made me feel more involved in my care’ (0.24, p = 0.022) was also associated positively with overall experience. Factors before, during and after a musculoskeletal imaging test contribute to the patient experience. The overall experience is most influenced by patient discomfort and interactions with staff during the test, information provided and viewing images to improve patient involvement in clinical care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thorp D, Owens RG, Whitehouse G, Dewey ME (1990) Subjective experiences of magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Radiol 41:276–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. De Leonardis F, Orzincolo C, Prandini N, Trotta F (2008) The role of conventional radiography and scintigraphy in the third millennium. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 22:961–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Makanjee CR, Bergh AM, Hoffmann WA. Healthcare provider and patient perspectives on diagnostic imaging investigations. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med 2015; 7

  4. Carlsson S, Carlsson E (2013) The situation and the uncertainty about the coming result scared me but interaction with the radiographers helped me through’: a qualitative study on patients’ experiences of magnetic resonance imaging examinations. J Clin Nurs 22:3225–3234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Törnqviste E, Månsson Å, Larsson E-M, Hallström I (2006) It’s like being in another world-patients’ lived experience of magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Nurs 15:954–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Munn Z, Jordan Z (2011) The patient experience of high technology medical imaging: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Radiography 17:323–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nightingale JM, Murphy FJ, Blakeley C (2012) ‘I thought it was just an x-ray’: a qualitative investigation of patient experiences in cardiac SPECT-CT imaging. Nucl Med Commun 33:246–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dewey M, Schink T, Dewey C (2007) Claustrophobia during magnetic resonance imaging: cohort study in over 50,000 patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:1322–1327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Britten N (1995) Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 311:251–253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Watling CJ, Lingard L (2012) Grounded theory in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 70. Med Teach 34:850–861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ryan F, Coughlan M, Cronin P (2007) Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research. Br J Nurs 16:738–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Si SX, Cullen JB (1998) Response categories and potential cultural bias: effects of an explicit middle point in cross-cultural surveys. The international journal of organizational analysis 6:218–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Preston CC, Colman AM (2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol 104:1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ministry of Health. Ethnicity code tables. 2010

  16. MacKenzie R, Sims C, Owens RG, Dixon AK (1995) Patients’ perceptions of magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Radiol 50:137–143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenkrantz AB, Flagg ER (2015) Survey-based assessment of patients’ understanding of their own imaging examinations. J Am Coll Radiol 12:549–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Keefe FJ, Hauck ER, Egert J, Rimer B, Kornguth P (1994) Mammography pain and discomfort: a cognitive-behavioral perspective. Pain 56:247–260

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Carlin LE, Smith HE, Henwood F (2014) To see or not to see: a qualitative interview study of patients’ views on their own diagnostic images. BMJ Open 4:e004999

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Devcich DA, Ellis CJ, Waltham N, Broadbent E, Petrie KJ (2014) Seeing what’s happening on the inside: patients’ views of the value of diagnostic cardiac computed tomography angiography. Br J Health Psychol 19:810–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sahbudin I, Bell J, Kumar K, Raza K, Filer A (2016) Observing real-time images during ultrasound-guided procedures improves patients’ experience. Rheumatology (Oxford) 55:585–586

    Google Scholar 

  22. Joshua F, Bailey C, Marabani M, Romas E, White R, Wong P. Perceptions of Doppler ultrasound for rheumatoid arthritis disease activity assessment and education. Int J Rheum Dis 2017

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Dalbeth.

Ethics declarations

Ethics

All aspects of this study received the ethical approval of the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee (approval number 15/CEN/188). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Funding

This project was funded with a grant from Arthritis New Zealand and a New Zealand Rheumatology Association scholarship.

Disclosures

None.

Electronic supplementary material

Online Resource 1

(DOCX 15 kb)

Online Resource 2

(DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bourke, S., Taylor, W.J., Doyle, A.J. et al. The patient experience of musculoskeletal imaging tests for investigation of inflammatory arthritis: a mixed-methods study. Clin Rheumatol 37, 2261–2268 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3760-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3760-0

Keywords

Navigation