Study of lone working magnetic resonance technologists in Western Australia

Objectives: It is recommended that magnetic resonance (MR) technologists should not work alone due to potential occupational health risks although lone working is legally acceptable. The objective of this study was to investigate the current situation of lone working of MR technologists in Western Australia (WA) and any issue against the regulations. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire regarding the issues of occupational health of lone MR technologists was developed based on relevant literature and distributed to WA MR technologists. Descriptive (percentage of frequency, mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (Fisher’s exact, chi-square and t tests, and analysis of variance) were used to analyse the responses of the yes/no, multiple choice and 5 point scale questions from the returned questionnaires.Results: The questionnaire response rate was 65.6% (59/90). It was found that about half of the MR technologists (45.8%, 27/59) experienced lone working. The private magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) centres were more likely to arrange technologists to work alone (p <0.05). The respondents expressed positive views on issues of adequacy of training and arrangement, confidence and comfort towards lone working except immediate assistance for emergency (mean: 3). Factors of existence of MRI safety officer (p < 0.05) and nature of lone working (p < 0.001-0.05) affected MR technologists’ concerns. Conclusions: Lone working of MR technologists is common in WA especially private centres. The training and arrangement provided seem to be adequate for meeting the legal requirements. However, several areas should be improved by the workplaces including enhancement on immediate assistance for emergency and concern relief

Crowdfunding our health: economic risks and benefits

Crowdfunding is an expanding form of alternative financing that is gaining traction in the health sector. This article presents a typology for crowdfunded health projects and a review of the main economic benefits and risks of crowdfunding in the health market. We use evidence from a literature review, complimented by expert interviews, to extend the fundamental principles and established theories of crowdfunding to a health market context. Crowdfunded health projects can be classified into four types according to the venture's purpose and funding method. These are projects covering health expenses, fundraising health initiatives, supporting health research, or financing commercial health innovation. Crowdfunding could economically benefit the health sector by expanding market participation, drawing money and awareness to neglected health issues, improving access to funding, and fostering project accountability and social engagement. However, the economic risks of health-related crowdfunding include inefficient priority setting, heightened financial risk, inconsistent regulatory policies, intellectual property rights concerns, and fraud. Theorized crowdfunding behaviours such as signalling and herding can be observed in the market for health-related crowdfunding. Broader threats of market failure stemming from adverse selection and moral hazard also apply. Many of the discussed economic benefits and risks of crowdfunding health campaigns are shared more broadly with those of crowdfunding projects in other sectors. Where crowdfunding health care appears to diverge from theory is the negative externality inefficient priority setting may have towards achieving broader public health goals. Therefore, the market for crowdfunding health care must be economically stable, as well as designed to optimally and equitably improve public health