Predictors of anxiety in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging scans: a multicenter cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a noninvasive diagnostic tool that is commonly used to visualize soft tissues and anatomical structures. Many patients who undergo MRI scans experience anxiety. This multicenter study was conducted to assess anxiety levels experienced by patients who underwent MRI scans in the Palestinian radiology departments and identify the risk factors associated with higher levels of anxiety experienced by the patients. METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in the radiology departments of different hospitals in the West Bank of Palestine using a questionnaire. The questionnaire collected different demographic data of the patients. A 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess the level of anxiety experienced by the patients who received MRI scans. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 28. RESULTS: A total of 383 patients participated in this study. Of the patients, 255 (66.6%) reported experiencing low, moderate, or high anxiety levels during the MRI scan. The median anxiety was 20.0 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 0.0-50.0 as measured using the 100-mm VAS. Higher anxiety levels were reported by the patients who were female (p-value < 0.001), unemployed (p-value = 0.009), and did not receive an MRI scan before (p-value = 0.001). In addition, the patients who received pelvis scans reported higher levels of anxiety compared to those who received scans for upper extremities (p-value = 0.031), abdomen (p-value = 0.033), pelvis (p-value = 0.043), and lower extremities (p-value = 0.016). In addition, the patients who received scans for the head/neck reported higher levels of anxiety compared to the patients who received scans for the lower extremities (p-value = 0.021). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that a considerable proportion of the patients who received MRI scans in Palestinian hospitals experience anxiety. Radiologists and other decision-makers in the healthcare system should design effective measures to reduce anxiety and improve the experiences of patients who are female, unemployed, and those who are scheduled to receive MRI scans for the first time. Moreover, these interventions should particularly focus on the patients who are scheduled to receive scans for the pelvis and head/neck.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".