Volume 15, Issue 2 (Summer & Autumn 2018)                   ASJ 2018, 15(2): 73-76 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print


1- Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
2- Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Abstract:   (3281 Views)

Learning skull radiography techniques is time consuming and difficult, due to the variety of these techniques. Each year, poor employee performance of the radiology unit, impose repetitive radiographs, and a heavy burden on the health system, as well as double exposure of patients and staff. According to the results of the current investigation, comparing student’s opinions revealed that the use of flash cards could facilitate and accelerate learning of radiographic techniques. Moreover, it is demonstrated that using flash cards could help maintain long-term radiographic techniques and are effective in the education process. This report highlights that the use of flash cards not only facilitates and accelerates the learning of the skull radiographic techniques, but also can reduce the repetitive radiographs, the costs imposed on the health system and double exposure of patients and staff.

Full-Text [PDF 543 kb]   (1559 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (1852 Views)  
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Gross Anatomy
Received: 2017/10/10 | Accepted: 2018/03/25 | Published: 2018/07/1

References
1. Moosavi M, Koohpayehzadeh J, Soltani Arabshahi SK, Bigdeli S, Hatami K. [Assessment of educational environment at main clinical wards in teaching hospitals affiliated to Iran University of Medical Sciences: Stagers and Interns viewpoints based on modified DREEM (Persian)]. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences. 2015; 21(129):58-67.
2. Malekian F, Nadi M. The effect of program learning on learning and retention of mathematics among the fifth–step students affected with learning disabilities in Kermanshah City. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 46:785-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.199] [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.199]
3. Owusu-Banahene J, Darko EO, Hasford F, Addison EK, Asirifi JO. Film reject analysis and image quality in diagnostic Radiology Department of a Teaching hospital in Ghana. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2014; 7(4):589-94. [DOI:10.1016/j.jrras.2014.09.012] [DOI:10.1016/j.jrras.2014.09.012]
4. Glaser SM, Dehn TG. Reject film study: Cost and quality considerations in a radiology department. Quality Review Bulletin. 1980; 6(6):19-22. [PMID] [PMID]
5. Peer S, Peer R, Walcher M, Pohl W, Jaschke W. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. European Radiology. 1999; 9(8):1693-96. [DOI: 10.1007/s003300050911] [PMID] [DOI:10.1007/s003300050911]
6. Fauber T. Radiographic imaging and exposure. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016.
7. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology-E-Book: Principles and interpretation. Amesterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.
8. Zhang ZL, Yang X, Zhao Y. [A study of errors of radiography in 10000 intraoral periapical radiographs (Chinese)]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology. 1995; 4(3):142. [PMID] [PMID]
9. National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurement. Medical radiation exposure of the U.S. population greatly increased since the early 1980s. Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurement; 2009.
10. Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world?. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000; 284(4):483-5. [PMID] [DOI:10.1001/jama.284.4.483] [PMID]

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.