In the years since the turn of the century, interventional radiology has made quantifiable strides toward familiarizing the general public with the specialty and, along the way, helping IR better compete for business with surgery.
So note researchers who surveyed 1,000 individuals and found very close to 40% recognized IR as a medical specialty while 44.4% knew that interventional radiologists are physicians.
Compare those figures with survey findings from 2000, when only 2% of the population identified IR as a medical specialty and from 2028, when just 28% correctly identified interventional rads as physicians.
The new study was conducted at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and published Feb. 8 in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology [1].
Senior study author Mina Makary, MD, and colleagues used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform to gauge anonymous participants’ IR knowledge.
Tallying the responses, the team found the vast majority of the field—92%—indicated they would prefer a minimally invasive procedure over traditional surgery.
Yet only 39.8% recognized IR as a medical specialty and fewer than half of these correctly identified IR as procedurally oriented.
Of 113 respondents who had ever been referred to an interventional radiologist (11% of the field), 74% received the referral from their primary care provider and 58% were simultaneously offered the option of going to a surgeon.
Of the 113, some 66 (71%) chose the surgeon and reported a lack of awareness about IR as a deciding factor.
Intriguingly, more than half the field, 555 respondents, said the term “interventional radiology” is ambiguous.
“Minimally invasive radiologist” was the most commonly preferred alternative.
Other key findings:
- Almost half of respondents (n=458) were interested in learning more about IR, particularly the diseases treated and procedures performed (42% and 37%, respectively).
- Short educational videos and increased patient education by PCPs were among the ways participants most frequently suggested for building awareness of IR.
In their discussion Makary and co-authors underscore communication gaps between primary care providers and specialty trained physicians such as interventional radiologists.
“Initiating and maintaining professional relationships with local PCPs is the first step to improving patient referrals to IR,” the authors write.
They call for efforts to educate PCPs about conditions IR physicians commonly treat, from peripheral artery and venous disease to fibroids, benign prostatic hyperplasia and chronic pain.
Commenting on the specialty’s struggles for name recognition, Makary and colleagues acknowledge that the top vote-getters in the survey—“minimally invasive radiologist, “procedural radiologist” and “radiological surgeon”—may not offer a perfect solution.
However, “the majority consensus of our respondents in favor of a potential name change may expedite further reviewal.”
More:
Interventional radiologists take on three identities—radiologist, surgeon and clinician. Our hope for the future is that the public and our patients understand this, and a name change of the medical specialty could expedite the process.”
Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.