Scoping review maps bullying and harassment in radiography, revealing pervasive issues affecting workforce safety.
INTRODUCTION: Workplace bullying and harassment (WBH) are psychosocial hazards that compromise staff well-being, workforce stability, and patient safety. Radiographers are potentially exposed to WBH due to their frontline roles, lone working, and exposure to high-pressure clinical environments. This scoping review systematically mapped evidence on both interprofessional and public-initiated bullying and harassment experienced by radiographers. METHODS: The review protocol was published on Open Science Framework. Electronic searches were conducted in April 2025 across CINAHL, MEDLINE, AMED, APA PsycINFO, and Google Scholar, limited to studies published between February 2014 and January 2025. Backward reference screening and grey literature searches were conducted to improve comprehensiveness. Data from the included studies were extracted using a data charting template and synthesised descriptively. No ethical approval was required. RESULTS: Ten studies (n = 1,389 participants) from ten countries in Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America were included. Prevalence of WBH ranged from 45 to 100%, exceeding pooled estimates for nurses (36-45%) and junior doctors (24-32%). Verbal abuse was most common, followed by physical assault and sexual harassment. Patients were frequently reported as perpetrators, followed by patients' carers and family members. Long patient waiting times were frequently reported as organisational conditions that cause patient aggression. Reporting rates were low (<50%), primarily due to limited knowledge of how to report. CONCLUSION: WBH is a global and persistent issue in radiography, with significant implications for the workforce. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Addressing WBH requires organisational commitment to a high psychosocial safety climate, anonymous reporting mechanisms, inclusive and culturally aware leadership training, and targeted interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ollawa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: