Tracking and evaluation of the application of the occupational health standard (GBZ/T 220.2—2009) among radiological professionals
10.13491/j.issn.1004-714X.2022.01.009
- VernacularTitle:职业卫生标准（GBZ/T 220.2—2009）在放射卫生专业技术人员中的应用追踪评价
- Author:
Yang NI
1
;
Jimian ZHANG
1
;
Zhen NIU
1
;
Chunxu LIU
1
;
Yan LIU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Occupational Disease Control and Prevention, Tianjin Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, Tianjin 300011 China.
- Publication Type:OriginalArticles
- Keywords:
Radiological professional;
Radiotherapy facility;
Radiological protection assessment;
Standard;
Tracking and evaluation
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Health
2022;31(1):47-51
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the actual situation and problems faced by radiological professionals in implementing The Specification of Radiological Protection Assessment for Occupational Hazard in Construction Project Part 2: Radiotherapy Facility (GBZ/T 220.2—2009). Methods A questionnaire survey was performed on radiological professionals who were selected, using the multi-stage stratified sampling method, from those who had participated in the assessment for occupational hazard in the construction project of radiotherapy facility from seven provinces and cities in China. A descriptive statistical analysis was used to analyze the general information and the awareness, promotion, and implementation of the standard of the participants. The chi-squared test was used to compare the data of different regions. Results A total of 173 radiological professionals from seven provinces and cities were investigated. They had a relatively high awareness rate (98.8%) of the standard, but a relatively low training and promotion rate (65.3%) of the standard. There were no significant differences in the awareness rate and the training and promotion rate between different regions (χ2 = 2.743, P = 0.602; χ2 = 5.584, P = 0.061). The use frequency of the standard was relatively low among the radiological professionals, and 64.9% of them thought that it was necessary to revise the standard, especially to further refine the scope of application, key technical indicators such as assessment methods, and radiological protection management regulations. Conclusion The training and promotion of the standard should be strengthened among radiological professionals. Some key technical indicators in the standard should be clarified and refined.
