Effective communication in nuclear medicine (NM) is essential to ensure adequate patient preparation, reduce examination-related anxiety, and improve the overall quality of care. This prospective study evaluated the impact of an audiovisual intervention on patient comprehension, anxiety, and adherence to preparation protocols related to NM examinations. Educational videos were developed by a multidisciplinary team, covering topics such as the principles of NM, examination procedures, preparation guidelines, and radiation safety. In total, 130 patients were included and divided into 2 groups: those who did not receive the videos (control group, n = 50) and those who received the videos before the NM examination (video group, n = 80). A structured questionnaire assessed internet and video platform use, knowledge about NM and how NM examinations are performed, understanding of preparation instructions, examination-related anxiety, and the effectiveness of videos. The results demonstrated that patients who watched the videos experienced a statistically significant improvement in knowledge about NM (36.0% vs. 55.0%, P = 0.047) and fewer difficulties understanding preparation instructions (78.0% vs. 10.0%, P < 0.0001). No significant between-group difference was observed regarding knowledge about radiation use (92.0% vs. 97.5%, P = 0.204). Anxiety severity differed between groups (χ2 = 4.401, P = 0.0359), with the video group showing lower levels of examination-related anxiety and a higher proportion of patients without anxiety compared with the control group. The findings indicate that audiovisual resources are effective tools for enhancing patient education, reducing examination-related anxiety, and improving adherence in NM. Their implementation can contribute to greater efficiency, standardization of communication, and an improved patient experience. These results support the integration of audiovisual strategies into health care communication protocols, particularly in complex clinical settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Melo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: