Risk perception among the workers in radiotherapy facilities located in North Eastern States, India

• Autorzy: Singh T. D.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/pjmpe-2018-0018

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the radiotherapy practice, regulator defines risk in terms of physically measurable quantities and attempt to implement the results obtained from the risk assessment of this practice, using quantitative approach. Although such approach has significantly brought down radiation dose, injuries and fatalities to the workers as compared to the radiotherapy practices before World War II, the objectivity concept of risk that limits the assessment regarding physically measurable quantities is widely urged throughout the world. This study examined how the risk associated with radiotherapy practice has been perceived, and experienced by both professional and non-professional workers in the radiotherapy facilities located in Manipur, Meghalaya, and Assam. This study found that professional and non- professional workers exhibited different risk perception on the same physical risk. Such different risk perceptions influenced the establishment of radiological protection systems in the facility. Non-professional workers are more likely to be the affected group in a facility having weak radiological protection systems.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

radiotherapy; radiological protection; risk perception

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Fizyki Medycznej ; De Gruyter
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 24, Iss. 3
• Strony: 127--131
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 24 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Singh T. D.

• Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai, India
• Tata Institute of Social Sciences, V.N. Purav Marg, Deonar, Mumbai, India

Bibliografia

• [1] Clarke RH, Valentin J. The history of ICRP and the evolution of its policies. Annals of the ICRP. 2009;39(1):75-110.
• [2] Drury HC. Dermatitis caused by Roentgen X rays. Br Med J. 1896;2(1871):1377-1378.
• [3] Grubbe EH. Priority in the therapeutic use of X-rays. Radiology. 1933;21(2):156-162.
• [4] Duke University Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library: "Edison Fears the Hidden Perils of the X-Rays", New York World, August 3, 1903, Durham, NC.
• [5] Molineus W, Holthusen H, Meyer H. Ehrenbuch der Radiologen aller Nationen, third ed. Blackwell Wissenschaft, Berlin. 1992.
• [6] Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, et al. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk analysis. 1988;8(2):177-187.
• [7] Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Why study risk perception? Risk analysis. 1982;2(2):83-93.
• [8] Singh TD, Jayaraman T, Arunkumar Sharma B. Assessment of radiological protection systems among diagnostic radiology facilities in North East India. J Radiol Prot. 2016;37(1):68-83.
• [9] Pidgeon NF, Hood C, Jones DK, et al. Risk Perception. In: Risk Analysis, Perception and Management: Report of a Royal Society Study Group. London: The Royal Society. 1992:89.
• [10] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124-1131.
• [11] Renn O, Burns WJ, Kasperson JX, et al. The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. J Soc Issues. 1992;48(4):137-160.
• [12] Barke RP, Jenkins‐Smith HC. Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis. 1993;13(4):425-439.
• [13] IAEA. Lessons learned from accidental exposures in Radiotherapy. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, Safety Reports Series No. 17; 2000
• [14] Valentin J (ed). ICRP Publication 86: Prevention of Accidents to Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2000.
• [15] Ortiz P, Oresegun M, Wheatley J. Lessons from major radiation accidents. In: Proceedings of 10th International Congress of International Radiation Protection Association. 2000.
• [16] Stavem P, Brøgger A, Devik F, et al. Lethal acute gamma radiation accident at Kjeller, Norway. Report of a case. Acta Radiol Oncol. 1985;24(1):61-63.
• [17] AERB 2005-2015 AERB Annual Reports 2005-2015, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai, 2005.
• [18] Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE. A domain‐specific risk‐attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak. 2002;15(4):263-290.
• [19] Cha YJ. An analysis of nuclear risk perception: with focus on developing effective policy alternatives. Int Rev Public Adm. 2004;8(2):33-47.
• [20] Fereday J, Miur-Cochrane E. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. Int J Qualitative Meth. 2006;5(1):80-92.
• [21] Alotaibi M, Saeed R. Radiology nurses' awareness of radiation. J Radiol Nursing. 2006;25(1):7-12.
• [22] Awosan KJ, Ibrahim MT, Saidu SA, et al. Knowledge of Radiation Hazards, Radiation Protection Practices and Clinical Profile of Health Workers in a Teaching Hospital in Northern Nigeria. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(8):LC07-12.
• [23] Badawy MK, Mong KS, Lykhun UP, Deb P. An assessment of nursing staffs’ knowledge of radiation protection and practice. J Radiol Prot. 2016;36(1):178-183.
• [24] Sedham LN, Yanni MYI. Radiation therapy and nurses’ fears of radiation. Cancer Nursing. 1985;8(2):129-134.