[Comparison of the application of new and old specification for occupational health surveillance of radiation workers and analysis of influencing factors].

Q3 Medicine
B Zhou, J X Zhang
{"title":"[Comparison of the application of new and old specification for occupational health surveillance of radiation workers and analysis of influencing factors].","authors":"B Zhou, J X Zhang","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20230316-00084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To investigate the impact of the implementation of GBZ 98-2020 \"Health Requirements and Surveillance Specifications for Radiation Worker\" on the results of occupational health examination for radiation workers. <b>Methods:</b> In April 2022, the subjects of the study were the radiation workers who underwent occupational health examination in Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment Institute of Hefei. The radiation workers whose registration period was from May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022 were the new standard group, and the occupational health surveillance standard was GBZ 98-2020 \"Health Requirements and Surveillance Specifications for Radiation Worker\". The radiationl workers registered from May 1, 2020 to April 30, 2021 were the old standard group, whose occupational health surveillance standards were GBZ 98- 2017 \"Health Requirements for Radiation Workers\" and GBZ 235-2011 \"Specifications for Occupational Health Surveillance for Radiation Workers\". To analyze whether there were differences between the two groups in the detection rate of missing items in the examination, re-examination, and the detection rate of occupational contraindications. The radiation workers whose occupational health examination results showed re-examination and/or occupational contraindications were judged to be in the unqualified group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to find the factors affecting the determination of unqualified group. <b>Results:</b> The missing item detection rate of radiation workers in the new standard group was 3.04% (63/2074) , significantly higher than that in the old standard group (0.68%, 14/2054) (<i>P</i><0.05) . The re-examination and occupational contraindications detection rates in the new standard group were 5.93% (123/2074) and 0.58% (12/2074) , respectively, which were significantly lower than those in the old standard group (13.83%, 284/2054) and 2.34% (48/2054) (<i>P</i><0.05) . The missing item detection rate of males in the new standard group was 2.78% (40/1440) , which was significantly higher than that in the old standard group (0.72%, 11/1536) (<i>P</i><0.05) . The re-examination and occupational contraindications detection rates of males in the new standard group were 3.61% (52/1440) and 0.21% (3/1440) , respectively, which were significantly lower than those in the old standard group (12.17%, 187/1536) and 2.08% (32/1536) (<i>P</i><0.05) . The missing item detection rate of females in the new standard group was 3.63% (23/634) , which was significantly higher than that in the old standard group (0.58%, 3/518) (<i>P</i><0.05) . The re-examination detection rate of females in the new standard group was 11.20% (71/634) , which was significantly lower than that of females in the old standard group (18.73%, 97/518) (<i>P</i><0.05) . Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that gender, radiation classification, determination basis, occupational health examination category, and registration category were all influencing factors for the unqualified occupational health examination results of radiation workers (<i>P</i><0.05) . Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of being judged as unqualified based on the old standard was 2.466 times that of the new standard (95%<i>CI</i>: 1.975-3.080, <i>P</i><0.05) , and the risk of being judged as unqualified for females was 1.869 times that of males (95%<i>CI</i>: 1.498-2.333, <i>P</i><0.05) , the risk of being judged as unqualified for radiation workers during and after employment was 0.802 times that of pre-employment individuals (95%<i>CI</i>: 0.650-0.989, <i>P</i><0.05) , and the risk of being judged as unqualified for re-examined individuals was 4.056 times that of initial examinees (95%<i>CI</i>: 3.161-5.203, <i>P</i><0.05) . <b>Conclusion:</b> The results of occupational health examination of radiation workers are related to the determination basis, gender, occupational health examination category, and registration category. The implementation of GBZ 98-2020 \"Health Requirements and Surveillance Specifications for Radiation Worker\" may reduce the detection rate of unqualified personnel.</p>","PeriodicalId":23958,"journal":{"name":"中华劳动卫生职业病杂志","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华劳动卫生职业病杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20230316-00084","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the impact of the implementation of GBZ 98-2020 "Health Requirements and Surveillance Specifications for Radiation Worker" on the results of occupational health examination for radiation workers. Methods: In April 2022, the subjects of the study were the radiation workers who underwent occupational health examination in Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment Institute of Hefei. The radiation workers whose registration period was from May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022 were the new standard group, and the occupational health surveillance standard was GBZ 98-2020 "Health Requirements and Surveillance Specifications for Radiation Worker". The radiationl workers registered from May 1, 2020 to April 30, 2021 were the old standard group, whose occupational health surveillance standards were GBZ 98- 2017 "Health Requirements for Radiation Workers" and GBZ 235-2011 "Specifications for Occupational Health Surveillance for Radiation Workers". To analyze whether there were differences between the two groups in the detection rate of missing items in the examination, re-examination, and the detection rate of occupational contraindications. The radiation workers whose occupational health examination results showed re-examination and/or occupational contraindications were judged to be in the unqualified group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to find the factors affecting the determination of unqualified group. Results: The missing item detection rate of radiation workers in the new standard group was 3.04% (63/2074) , significantly higher than that in the old standard group (0.68%, 14/2054) (P<0.05) . The re-examination and occupational contraindications detection rates in the new standard group were 5.93% (123/2074) and 0.58% (12/2074) , respectively, which were significantly lower than those in the old standard group (13.83%, 284/2054) and 2.34% (48/2054) (P<0.05) . The missing item detection rate of males in the new standard group was 2.78% (40/1440) , which was significantly higher than that in the old standard group (0.72%, 11/1536) (P<0.05) . The re-examination and occupational contraindications detection rates of males in the new standard group were 3.61% (52/1440) and 0.21% (3/1440) , respectively, which were significantly lower than those in the old standard group (12.17%, 187/1536) and 2.08% (32/1536) (P<0.05) . The missing item detection rate of females in the new standard group was 3.63% (23/634) , which was significantly higher than that in the old standard group (0.58%, 3/518) (P<0.05) . The re-examination detection rate of females in the new standard group was 11.20% (71/634) , which was significantly lower than that of females in the old standard group (18.73%, 97/518) (P<0.05) . Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that gender, radiation classification, determination basis, occupational health examination category, and registration category were all influencing factors for the unqualified occupational health examination results of radiation workers (P<0.05) . Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of being judged as unqualified based on the old standard was 2.466 times that of the new standard (95%CI: 1.975-3.080, P<0.05) , and the risk of being judged as unqualified for females was 1.869 times that of males (95%CI: 1.498-2.333, P<0.05) , the risk of being judged as unqualified for radiation workers during and after employment was 0.802 times that of pre-employment individuals (95%CI: 0.650-0.989, P<0.05) , and the risk of being judged as unqualified for re-examined individuals was 4.056 times that of initial examinees (95%CI: 3.161-5.203, P<0.05) . Conclusion: The results of occupational health examination of radiation workers are related to the determination basis, gender, occupational health examination category, and registration category. The implementation of GBZ 98-2020 "Health Requirements and Surveillance Specifications for Radiation Worker" may reduce the detection rate of unqualified personnel.

[辐射工作人员职业健康监护新旧规范应用比较及影响因素分析]。
目的研究GBZ 98-2020《放射工作人员健康要求与监护规范》的实施对放射工作人员职业健康检查结果的影响。研究方法以 2022 年 4 月在合肥市职业病防治院进行职业健康检查的放射工作人员为研究对象。以2021年5月1日至2022年4月30日登记注册的放射工作人员为新标准组,职业健康监护标准为GBZ 98-2020《放射工作人员健康要求与监护规范》。2020年5月1日至2021年4月30日注册的放射工作人员为旧标准组,其职业健康监护标准为GBZ 98-2017《放射工作人员健康要求》和GBZ 235-2011《放射工作人员职业健康监护规范》。分析两组检查缺项检出率、复查率、职业禁忌症检出率是否存在差异。将职业健康检查结果显示有复查和/或职业禁忌症的放射工作人员判定为不合格组。采用单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析找出影响不合格组判定的因素。结果显示新标准组放射工作人员缺项检出率为 3.04%(63/2074),明显高于旧标准组(0.68%,14/2054)(PPPPPCI:1.975-3.080,PCI:1.498-2.333,PCI:0.650-0.989,PCI:3.161-5.203,PC结论:放射工作人员职业健康检查结果与判定依据、性别、职业健康检查类别、登记类别有关。GBZ 98-2020《放射工作人员健康要求与监护规范》的实施可降低不合格人员的检出率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
中华劳动卫生职业病杂志
中华劳动卫生职业病杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9764
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信