RSS-Feed abonnieren

DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1810625
Exploring the Acceptance of Remote MR Scanning Technology among Radiographers in the Context of a Global Shift Toward Distance Collaboration: A First Glance

Abstract
Background
Remote magnetic resonance (MR) scanning has emerged as a solution for supporting radiographers from a distance during complex MR imaging examinations.
Materials and Methods
A demonstration of a commercially available remote MR scanning technology was delivered during a radiography conference. An electronic survey was conducted to investigate the perceived ease of use (PEoU), perceived usefulness (PU), attitude toward technology (ATT), and behavioral intention to use the technology (BI). The responses were analyzed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Thirty-five responses were collected.
Results
PEoU and PU received high scores, indicating that respondents found the technology easy to use and useful. ATT and BI received lower scores, suggesting some hesitation in the adoption of the technology.
Conclusion
This was an early evaluation of the acceptance of remote MR scanning technology in Greece. Further research is necessary to fill the research gap in remote MR scanning, enabling future researchers to generate more reliable conclusions.
Authors' Contributions
K.K. and I.K. conceptualized the study. K.K. and I.A. designed the methodology and performed the statistical analysis and investigation. K.K. prepared the original draft manuscript and supervised the study. K.K., I.K., and I.A. reviewed and edited the manuscript. I.K. and E.D. provided the resources.
Ethical Approval
This was an independent survey (not part of an institutional research protocol) conducted during the First Greek Radiological Technologists Conference held in November 2024 in Athens, Greece. Therefore, approval from an Institutional Review Board was not obtained. However, the organizing and scientific committees of the conference were informed in writing about our intention to conduct this survey and provided written permission.
Participants' Consent
All participants were informed prior to completing the electronic form that their responses would be used solely for our research purposes. They were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their answers. After receiving this information, they provided consent electronically before filling out the online questionnaire.
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. August 2025
© 2025. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Apostolakis I, Konstantinidis K. Digital transformation in healthcare. challenges and prospects. Health Rev. 2024; 35 (191) 4-6
- 2 Basu A. Platforms for collaborative process. In: Gogia S. ed. Fundamentals of Telemedicine and Telehealth. Chap. 5. Academic Press; 2020: 93-113
- 3 Kramer U, Schlemmer HP. [Remote control for magnetic resonance imaging as a part of daily routine examinations]. Rofo 2007; 179 (07) 739-742
- 4 Quinsten AS, Apel M, Oliveira S. Remote MR scanning - a solution for shortage of skilled radiographers. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2023; 54 (03) 410-414
- 5 Deistung A, Gussew A, Schneider J, Beblacz A, Pech M, Wohlgemuth WA. Remote operation of cross-sectional imaging devices as a new form of teleoperation: structural, technical, regulatory, and qualification aspects in Germany. Rofo 2024; 196 (09) 928-938
- 6 Kouka A, Konstantinidis K, Apostolakis I. Web 2.0 tools for enhancement of nursing practice: implementation scenarios. Arch Hell Med. 2023; 40 (03) 389-399
- 7 Melas CD, Zampetakis LA, Dimopoulou A, Moustakis V. Modeling the acceptance of clinical information systems among hospital medical staff: an extended TAM model. J Biomed Inform 2011; 44 (04) 553-564
- 8 Douglas Morris H. Ubiquitous remote operation collaborative interface for MRI scanners. In: Proc SPIE 4319, Medical Imaging 2001: Visualization, Display, and Image-Guided Procedures. SPIE; 2001: 574-581
- 9 Finn JP, Saleh R, Thesen S. et al. MR imaging with remote control: feasibility study in cardiovascular disease. Radiology 2006; 241 (02) 528-537
- 10 Garg R, Sevilla A, Garberich R, Fleishman CE. Remote delivery of congenital cardiac magnetic resonance imaging services: a unique telemedicine model. Pediatr Cardiol 2015; 36 (01) 226-232
- 11 Hudson D, Sahibbil JP. Remote scanning support in magnetic resonance imaging: friend or foe?. Radiography (Lond) 2022; 28 (03) 739-745
- 12 Li L, Mastrangelo C, Briller N, Tesfaldet M, Starobinets O, Stapleton S. Prioritizing magnetic resonance (MR) radiology functions for virtual operations: a feasibility study. J Hosp Manag Health Policy 2022; •••: 6
- 13 Konstantinidis K. The shortage of radiographers: a global crisis in healthcare. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2024; 55 (04) 101333
- 14 Davies A. COVID-19 and ICT-supported remote working: opportunities for rural economies. WORLD 2021; 2 (01) 139-152
- 15 Oudbier SJ, Souget-Ruff SP, Chen BSJ, Ziesemer KA, Meij HJ, Smets EMA. Implementation barriers and facilitators of remote monitoring, remote consultation and digital care platforms through the eyes of healthcare professionals: a review of reviews. BMJ Open 2024; 14 (06) e075833
- 16 De Bock A, McNulty J, England A. ECSO-MRI Consortium. Recognising the role of radiographers in MR safety and the contributions of the European Federation of Radiographer Societies. Insights Imaging 2025; 16 (01) 21
- 17 Kanal E. Divided liability remote MR scanning. J Magn Reson Imaging 2024; 59 (01) 337-339