MRI is becoming increasingly available and more common. However, it is a long examination, within a limited space, and making strong demands on the patient for proper co-operation. Using survey data collected by prospective questionnaire, this work examines the influence of patient preparation and type of MRI device on patients' subjective perception of the examination. The work analysed 800 patient questionnaires from 7 radiology centres, 12 MRI machines from 3 manufacturers. It was shown that 20% of patients were not informed at all or only insufficiently about the MRI examination by the referring physician, and this had a statistically significant effect on subjective perception as to the length of the examination. In claustrophobic patients, there was no significant difference in the perception of MRI examination between machine types (open vs. closed) or between bore size. This work demonstrated the influence of technical parameters of MRI devices on some other evaluated aspects in terms of patients' perception of MRI examinations (such as noise perception or peripheral nerves irritation) and that the preparation prior to the examination itself plays also an important role. Sufficient explanation from the referring physician, good workplace time management, and sufficient communication with the patient influence the subjective perception of the examination and thus indirectly its diagnostic benefit.

Department of Biophysics Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Department of Imaging Methods Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno St Anna University Hospital Brno Czech Republic

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Faculty of Medicine University Hospital Brno Masaryk University Brno Jihlavská 20 Brno 625 00 Czech Republic

Department of Radiology Hospital Blansko Blansko Czech Republic

Department of Radiology Hospital Břeclav Břeclav Czech Republic

Department of Radiology Hospital Kroměříž Kroměříž Czech Republic

Department of Radiology Hospital Kyjov Kyjov Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Magnetic resonance examinations by country 2019. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271470/mri-scanner-number-of-examinations-in-selected-countries/

Smith-Bindman, R. et al. Trends in Use of Medical Imaging in US Health Care systems and in Ontario, Canada, 2000–2016. JAMA. 322, 843–856 (2019). PubMed PMC

Alahmari, D. M. et al. Assessment of Patient Knowledge Level towards MRI Safety before the scanning in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Gen. Med.15, 6289–6299 (2022). PubMed PMC

Sin, H. et al. Assessing local patients’ knowledge and awareness of radiation dose and risks associated with medical imaging: A questionnaire study. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol.57, 38–44 (2013). PubMed

Törnqvist, E., Månsson, Å., Larsson, E. M. & Hallström, I. Impact of Extended Written Information on patient anxiety and image motion artifacts during magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol.47, 474–480 (2006). PubMed

Heilmaier, C. et al. A large-scale study on subjective perception of discomfort during 7 and 1.5 T MRI examinations. Bioelectromagnetics. 32, 610–619 (2011). PubMed

Rauschenberg, J. et al. Multicenter Study of Subjective Acceptance during magnetic resonance imaging at 7 and 9.4 T. Invest. Radiol.49, 249 (2014). PubMed

Madl, J., Janka, R., Bay, S. & Rohleder, N. MRI as a Stressor: The psychological and physiological response of patients to MRI, influencing factors, and consequences. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.19, 423–432 (2022). PubMed

Ajam, A. A. et al. Communication and team interactions to improve patient experiences, quality of Care, and Throughput in MRI. Top. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 29, 131–134 (2020). PubMed

Michael, A. E. et al. Does bore size matter? A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging. Med. (Baltim).102, e36069 (2023). PubMed PMC

Schick, F. et al. 1.5 vs 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A review of favorite clinical applications for both Field strengths—Part 1. Invest. Radiol.56, 680 (2021). PubMed

Radbruch, A. et al. 1.5 vs 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A review of favorite clinical applications for both field strengths—Part 2. Invest. Radiol.56, 692 (2021). PubMed

Berg, B. SDAPS. https://sdaps.org/

Pagano, M. B., Dunbar, N. M. & Stanworth, S. J. BEST collaborative and the Clinical Studies Group. How do we design and report a high-quality survey? Transfusion. 60, 2178–2184 (2020). PubMed

Manso Jimeno, M., Vaughan, J. T. & Geethanath, S. Superconducting magnet designs and MRI accessibility: A review. NMR Biomed.36, e4921 (2023). PubMed

Hattori, Y., Fukatsu, H. & Ishigaki, T. Measurement and evaluation of the acoustic noise of a 3 Tesla MR scanner. Nagoya J. Med. Sci.69, 23–28 (2007). PubMed

Koh, S. A. S., Lee, W., Rahmat, R., Salkade, P. R. & Li, H. Interethnic variation in the prevalence of claustrophobia during MRI at Singapore General Hospital: Does a wider bore MR scanner help? Proc. Singapore Healthc. 26, 241–245 (2017).

Recoskie, B. J., Scholl, T. J., Zinke-Allmang, M. & Chronik, B. A. Sensory and motor stimulation thresholds of the ulnar nerve from electric and magnetic field stimuli: Implications to gradient coil operation. Magn. Reson. Med.64, 1567–1579 (2010). PubMed

Davids, M., Guérin, B., Endt, A., vom, Schad, L. R. & Wald, L. L. Prediction of peripheral nerve stimulation thresholds of MRI gradient coils using coupled electromagnetic and neurodynamic simulations. Magn. Reson. Med.81, 686–701 (2019). PubMed PMC

Munn, Z. et al. Patient anxiety and satisfaction in a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Department: Initial results from an Action Research Study. J. Med. Imaging Radiation Sci.46, 23–29 (2015). PubMed

Hudson, D. M., Heales, C. & Vine, S. J. Radiographer perspectives on current occurrence and management of claustrophobia in MRI. Radiography. 28, 154–161 (2022). PubMed

Hudson, D. M., Heales, C. & Meertens, R. Review of claustrophobia incidence in MRI: A service evaluation of current rates across a multi-centre service. Radiography. 28, 780–787 (2022). PubMed

Bangard, C. et al. MR imaging of claustrophobic patients in an open 1.0T scanner: Motion artifacts and patient acceptability compared with closed bore magnets. Eur. J. Radiol.64, 152–157 (2007). PubMed