Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36127918›Full record

ArticleRevista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT

Evaluation of personal protective equipment use in healthcare workers exposed to ionizing radiation in a Portuguese university hospital.

João André Antunes-Raposo, Diana França, André Lima, Luís Mendonça-Galaio, Ema Maria Sacadura-Leite

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

João André Antunes-RaposoServiço de Saúde Ocupacional, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7088-0822
Diana FrançaServiço de Saúde Ocupacional, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-3501-0730
André LimaServiço de Saúde Ocupacional, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Luís Mendonça-GalaioServiço de Saúde Ocupacional, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Ema Maria Sacadura-LeiteServiço de Saúde Ocupacional, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2718-8472
Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte · PTUniversity of Lisbon · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Increasing use of ionizing radiation in hospitals exposes healthcare workers to health risks, therefore dosimetric surveillance and anti-radiation personal protective equipment are essential. However, low perception of risk has a negative impact on compliance. Objectives: To qualitatively characterize exposure to ionizing radiation and the compliance with anti-radiation personal protective equipment and personal dosimeters by workers, at a university hospital in Portugal. To investigate the impact of attending health examinations or participating in training activities on this compliance. Methods: Cross-sectional study design administering a questionnaire constructed by the authors to all healthcare workers exposed to ionizing radiation (n = 708). Results: A total of 295 workers completed the questionnaire. They worked in 16 different services using eight different types of ionizing radiation-emitting equipment, the most common of which were fluoroscopes. Lead aprons and thyroid protectors were the anti-radiation personal protective equipment with greatest compliance (61.7 and 55.6%, respectively), while fewer respondents used protective glasses (8.1%) and lead gloves (0.7%). Regular use of a dosimeter was reported by 78.3% of workers and use was associated with participation in training and with attending health examinations. The most frequent reasons given for not wearing anti-radiation personal protective equipment were unavailability (glasses and gloves), presence of a protective barrier, and discomfort. The most common reason for not using a dosimeter was forgetting to do so. Conclusions: Workers who attended training and those who attended health examinations were more compliant with use of dosimeters, indicating that these are useful strategies for improving workers' compliance with radiation protection measures.

Indexed as

dosimetryhealth workersionizing radiationoccupational health.radiation protection

Identifiers

PMID36127918
PMCPMC9458331
OpenAlexW4297891202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.