PDF icon PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1810625
Brief Report

Exploring the Acceptance of Remote MR Scanning Technology among Radiographers in the Context of a Global Shift Toward Distance Collaboration: A First Glance

Kleanthis Konstantinidis 
1   Advanced Imaging Methods Department, General Hospital of Attica KAT, Athens, Greece
,
Ioannis Katsas
2   GE HealthCare, Athens, Greece
,
Ioannis Apostolakis
3   Medical Physics Laboratory, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
,
Evangelos Dimoulas
4   Department of Radiology, General Hospital of Karditsa, Karditsa, Greece
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar aufeRefMedOne
 
 als PDF herunterladen Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background

Remote magnetic resonance (MR) scanning has emerged as a solution for supporting radiographers from a distance during complex MR imaging examinations.

Materials and Methods

A demonstration of a commercially available remote MR scanning technology was delivered during a radiography conference. An electronic survey was conducted to investigate the perceived ease of use (PEoU), perceived usefulness (PU), attitude toward technology (ATT), and behavioral intention to use the technology (BI). The responses were analyzed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Thirty-five responses were collected.

Results

PEoU and PU received high scores, indicating that respondents found the technology easy to use and useful. ATT and BI received lower scores, suggesting some hesitation in the adoption of the technology.

Conclusion

This was an early evaluation of the acceptance of remote MR scanning technology in Greece. Further research is necessary to fill the research gap in remote MR scanning, enabling future researchers to generate more reliable conclusions.


 

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging - remote scanning - radiographers

Introduction

The digital transformation in health care can change how patient care and services are delivered.[1] Incorporating advanced digital technologies into medical imaging services has already enabled telediagnosis and the operation of sophisticated imaging systems, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, enabling health care professionals to perform imaging procedures remotely.[2] [3] Remote MR scanning has emerged as a potential solution for supporting radiographers and technologists from a distance during complex MRI procedures.[4] Remote MR scanning refers to the ability to operate and monitor MRI procedures from a location that is physically separate from the MRI scanner site. The key components of remote MR scanning are: (1) the physical location where the MRI scanner and its workstation are installed, (2) the remote workstation, which is a secure computer system or interface used by the remote radiographer to control scanning parameters and monitor the procedure in real time, (3) a high-speed, secure internet connection enabling real-time communication between the MRI scanner and the remote workstation, (4) audio and video systems, allowing real-time interaction between the remote and on-site radiographers.[5] An oral presentation on remote MRI scanning technology and a demonstration of commercially available software were delivered at the First Greek Radiological Technologists Conference held in November 2024 in Athens, Greece, followed by an electronic survey among attending radiographers. The objective was to explore radiographers' acceptance of remote MR scanning technology in Greece rather than the software itself used.


 

Materials and Methods

Anonymous responses were collected during the conference, using an electronic questionnaire in Google Forms.[6] Each radiographer who attended the oral presentation and the remote MR scanning technology demonstration was eligible for the survey. A social media campaign followed, inviting radiographers with prior experience through the use, demonstration, or training of this technology to participate in the electronic survey voluntarily and anonymously.

The Greek-translated version of the Technology Assessment Model (TAM) was used for our survey, which comprises four distinct sections with 19 statements that explore the perceived ease of use (PEoU), perceived usefulness (PU), attitudes toward technology (ATT), and behavioral intention to use the technology (BI) on a five-point agreement Likert scale.[7] An open-ended question was included to gather respondents' opinions regarding the adoption of this technology, workflow management, human resource issues, and professional matters.

Our survey was conducted as independent research. Approval from an Institutional Review Board was not obtained. However, permission from the organizing and scientific committees of the conference to conduct this survey was obtained. All participants were electronically informed prior to completing the questionnaire that their responses would remain anonymous and confidential, and provided an electronic consent.


 

Results

[Fig. 1] shows the demographic characteristics of the 35 respondents. Only 10 respondents (29%) reported having previously used any technology that enables the remote operation of medical imaging equipment before the demonstration at the conference.

Zoom
Fig. 1 Demographic information (percentages) of respondents (N = 35).

According to [Fig. 2], respondents generally express mixed opinions about the remote MR scanning technology. While they acknowledge its ease of use and usefulness, there is hesitation regarding adoption and enjoyment. A significant number of neutral responses appear across various statements, indicating a need for better engagement and improvements in user experience and support.

Zoom
Fig. 2 Distribution (percentages) of responses (N = 35).

A summary of the mean scores and standard deviations for each statement in the TAM is presented in [Table 1].

Table 1

Descriptive statistics (N = 35)

Section

Statement

Mean

SD

PEoU

1.1 Learning to operate the technology was easy for me

4.49

0.70

1.2 I find it easy to get technology to do what I want it to do

4.11

0.76

1.3 My interaction with the technology is clear and understandable

4.09

0.78

1.4 My interaction with the technology does not require significant mental effort

3.00

1.28

1.5 It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the technology

4.31

0.83

1.6 Overall, I find it easy to use such technologies

3.80

0.90

Average score

3.97

0.65

PU

2.1.Using the technology would enable me to accomplish my tasks more quickly

3.80

1.05

2.2 Using the technology would improve my job performance

3.80

1.05

2.3 Using the technology would increase my productivity

3.94

0.97

2.4 Using the technology would enhance my effectiveness on the job

3.80

1.11

2.5 Using the technology would make it easier to do my job

3.97

0.89

2.6 Overall, I would find the technology useful in my job

4.09

1.12

Average score

3.90

0.88

ATT

3.1 Using the technology is advisable in clinical practice

3.37

1.09

3.2 Using the technology is a pleasant idea

3.69

1.25

3.3 I will enjoy using the technology

3.46

1.37

3.4 I will be satisfied using the technology

3.80

1.26

Average score

3.58

1.05

BI

4.1 I predict that I will use the technology in the future

3.63

1.14

4.2 The technology will be one of my favorite technologies for my work

3.49

1.20

4.3 I intent to use the technology in my work

3.89

0.99

Average score

3.67

0.98

Abbreviations: ATT, attitude toward technology; BI, behavioral intention to use the technology; PEoU, perceived ease of use; PU, perceived usefulness; SD, standard deviation.


The results on PEoU indicate that respondents generally find the system easy to use, but some experience cognitive effort when interacting with it. While respondents believe that the system is useful for their work, they have slightly lower confidence in the system's capacity to enhance effectiveness (PU). Regarding ATT, respondents have a moderate attitude toward using the system, but uncertainty exists about whether it is advisable in clinical practice. Moreover, the results on BI indicate that respondents have a moderate intention to use the system, but it is not necessarily a favorite technology.

The correlation coefficients (r) are shown in [Table 2].

Table 2

Correlation test results between variables

PEoU

PU

ATT

BI

PEoU

1.00

0.44[a] (p = 0.008)

0.52[b] (p = 0.001)

0.40[a] (p = 0.018)

PU

0.44[a] (p = 0.008)

1.00

0.89[a] (p < 0.001)

0.62[a] (p < 0.001)

ATT

0.52[b] (p = 0.001)

0.89[a] (p < 0.001)

1.00

0.75[a] (p < 0.001)

BI

0.40[a] (p = 0.018)

0.62[a] (p < 0.001)

0.75[a] (p < 0.001)

1.00

Abbreviations: ATT, attitude toward technology; BI, behavioral intention to use the technology; PEoU, perceived ease of use; PU, perceived usefulness.


a Spearman's correlation.


b Pearson's correlation.


A significant positive relation is observed between PU and ATT, and ATT and BI, indicating that respondents who find the system useful have a more positive attitude toward it, and that a more positive attitude strongly predicts intention to use, respectively. PU significantly influences BI, as reflected by the significant relation between these two variables. Moderate relations between PEoU and ATT, PEoU and PU, and PEoU and BI indicate that PEoU moderately affects ATT, has a moderate effect on PU, and has the weakest but still significant impact on BI. Briefly, PU is a strong predictor of ATT and BI, meaning respondents who see the system as useful are more likely to have a positive attitude and intend to use it. ATT is the strongest predictor of BI, suggesting that fostering a positive attitude significantly increases adoption.

Radiographers' responses to the open-ended question, “Please share your opinions or concerns regarding the practicality of remote MR scanning technology, workflow management, human resources, and professional issues,” are summarized in [Table 3].

Table 3

Benefits, concerns, and considerations summarized from open responses

Benefits

Training and support

Remote MRI scanning can be used to train new and support less-experienced radiographers/technologists when performing advanced imaging protocols

Access to MRI services for residents of islands, remote, and rural areas

This technology can be utilized in islands, remote and rural areas with a shortage of skilled radiographers/technologists, to improve accessibility in MRI services

Operational efficiency

Skilled radiographers/technologists can serve as supervisors, enhancing imaging quality when supporting less-experienced colleagues and performing imaging and protocol quality controls remotely

Working flexibility

Working from home or remotely can be both productive and practical, especially in cases of illness or workforce shortages

Workflow management

This technology has the potential to support radiographers/technologists to complete advanced examinations and manage workloads more efficiently

Sharing good practices

This technology may contribute to the improvement and standardization of imaging techniques and services

Concerns

Loss of the radiographer/technologist's physical presence

The radiographer/technologist's potential absence from the MRI area could impact the quality of the imaging process

Patient safety

Concerns are raised about proper patient positioning, monitoring of multiple patients, and management of potential adverse events without the physical presence of skilled and authorized personnel

Technical issues

Issues such as internet connection speed, stability, and capacity; image access delay; and possible system outages can affect complex examinations and patient experience negatively

Risk of job losses

There is significant concern that this technology may reduce radiographer/technologist available job vacancies, leading to unemployment

Downgrading of the radiographer/technologist's role

Concerns are expressed about controverting the role of radiographers/technologists in the MRI workstation and underestimating their professional contributions

Social isolation

If a radiographer/technologist primarily works remotely, their interaction with colleagues and patients may be limited, which can negatively impact on their professional experience and development

Training and skills development

Effective use of this technology necessitates training, language proficiency, and computer skills, which can pose challenges for some professionals

Regulatory and ethical issues

Questions arise regarding legislation, regulations, responsibilities, accountability, safety, and cybersecurity related to the implementation of this technology

Considerations

Remote MRI scanning should be used to complement the work of radiographers/technologists who are physically present when needed, rather than replace them

High-speed and stable internet connection and dedicated equipment and software are imperative for reliable remote MRI scanning

Remote MRI scanning should be used for training and support when performing advanced examinations

Protective measures should be implemented to safeguard radiographers/technologists' employment and job vacancies

The pilot implementation of remote MRI scanning is necessary to evaluate the real benefits and problems that may arise

The remote and local radiographer/technologist should collaborate effectively to ensure patient safety, communication and monitoring, and optimal examinations

Radiographers/technologists must receive appropriate, timely, and ongoing training in all aspects of remote MRI scanning to fully leverage those new capabilities

Abbreviation: MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.



 

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to explore the acceptance of remote MR scanning in Greece. Yet, remote MR scanning technology is not a new concept.[3] [8] [9] [10] An evaluation of this technology among 11 MRI radiographers in the United Kingdom has revealed a high mean PEoU score, indicating that respondents generally found the system easy to use. PU had a lower mean score, which might suggest that while the system was easy to use, its practical benefits were not as strongly perceived. ATT and BI were found to be moderate, suggesting that respondents feel relatively neutral about the technology; hence, while some respondents may continue using the system, others remain unsure.[11] In our survey, PEoU and PU are relatively high, indicating that respondents find the system easy to use and useful. ATT and BI are slightly lower, suggesting some hesitation in adoption. Our survey has concluded that PU is strongly related to ATT, meaning that the respondents with a higher perception of the system's usefulness have a more positive attitude toward its use.

Remote MRI scanning technology has the potential to maintain or even enhance the quality of patient care, particularly in underserved or rural areas where access to experienced MRI radiographers is limited.[12] [13] However, ensuring quality patient care depends on robust MRI protocols, real-time collaboration, and reliable system and internet connection performance.[14] [15] In emergencies, the facility must have appropriately trained on-site personnel to respond promptly, as the remote radiographer may not be able to intervene physically. Clear emergency protocols and staff training are therefore critical for patient safety.[5] [16] During a remote MRI scan, patient positioning typically falls under the responsibility of an on-site radiographer who is trained in MRI safety and positioning, while the remote MRI radiographer can guide the process via video or audio communication.[17] Therefore, effective collaboration between remote and on-site radiographers and adequate training are key factors to ensure patient safety, seamless communication, and optimal examination quality for this model.

Our findings show that the respondents find the technology both easy to use and useful, but with some hesitation in adoption. Overall, the respondents have mixed opinions about their attitude toward technology and whether they will use it. The limitation of this survey was the small sample size. Moreover, most respondents did not fully interact with this technology before the demonstration at the conference. Consequently, the findings are not widely applicable. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of larger sample sizes will provide more reliable results once the technology is widely adopted in practice.


 

 

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the organizer and the members of the organizational and scientific committees of the First Greek Radiological Technologists Conference, the respondents, and everyone who contributed to this research in any way.

Authors' Contributions

K.K. and I.K. conceptualized the study. K.K. and I.A. designed the methodology and performed the statistical analysis and investigation. K.K. prepared the original draft manuscript and supervised the study. K.K., I.K., and I.A. reviewed and edited the manuscript. I.K. and E.D. provided the resources.


Ethical Approval

This was an independent survey (not part of an institutional research protocol) conducted during the First Greek Radiological Technologists Conference held in November 2024 in Athens, Greece. Therefore, approval from an Institutional Review Board was not obtained. However, the organizing and scientific committees of the conference were informed in writing about our intention to conduct this survey and provided written permission.


Participants' Consent

All participants were informed prior to completing the electronic form that their responses would be used solely for our research purposes. They were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their answers. After receiving this information, they provided consent electronically before filling out the online questionnaire.



Address for correspondence

Kleanthis Konstantinidis, BSc, MSc, PhD(c)
Advanced Imaging Methods Department, General Hospital of Attica KAT
Athens 145 61
Greece   

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. August 2025

© 2025. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India


  Lizenzen und Reprints
Zoom
Fig. 1 Demographic information (percentages) of respondents (N = 35).
Zoom
Fig. 2 Distribution (percentages) of responses (N = 35).