Radiological protection in the perspective of health
professionals exposed to radiation: A Review
Introduction
After they were first discovered, X rays were rapidly put to wider use in the medical field.
Mounting data within the first few years revealed conclusively that large or repeated
doses might be hazardous, even though it was not immediately evident that such
exposures might be dangerous (1). The acknowledgment of the necessity for
implementing methods and utilizing technology to safeguard patients and operators from
unwarranted exposure marked the inception of radiation health protection. The concept
of radiation protection culture (RPC) comprises a wide range of knowledge, attitudes,
and practices that are relevant to the field of radiation safe. A strong radiation protection
culture (RPC) leads to improved diagnostic accuracy and treatment effectiveness, while
also promoting the safety of patients and staff through the reduction of radiation
exposure. The notion of radiation protection culture (RPC) was initially introduced by the
French Society for Radiation Protection and then adopted by the International Radiation
Protection Association (IRPA) in 2008. This concept pertains to the safe use of ionizing
radiation within the medical area and nuclear industry. The idea received a positive
reception from the Associate Societies involved, as well as from the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the European ALARA Network. During the inaugural Workshop
of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) on the topic of Radiological
Protection Culture (RPC) in 2009, a group of experts put out many definitions for RPC
and formulated a strategic plan to foster the advancement of a robust RPC. After a span
of two years, subsequent to a sequence of meetings, the Association released the
ultimate version of the Guiding Principles for Establishing a Regional Planning
Committee (RPC). Notably, in June 2014, the final draught was formally disseminated
and made available on the website of the International Radiation Protection Association
(IRPA) (2).
Healthcare practitioners, namely those employed in imaging industries and hospital
settings, experience greater levels of exposure to ionizing radiation. This investigation is
to evaluate the level of knowledge, attitudes, and social representation about
radioprotection among healthcare workers in a teaching hospital. Based on the facts
acquired, the objective was to foster contemplation among healthcare professionals
regarding precise associated with the subject matter. Regarding the topic of radiation
exposure and radiation safeguarding in individuals' everyday lives, it is important to
consider certain factors. In order to incentivize hospital management to adopt a
systematic approach, it is imperative to implement strategies that promote organizational
structure and efficiency. The study explores the many perspectives and beliefs around
radiation protection (3). The research project and the informed consent form were
submitted to and approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of the institution.
Upon receiving authorization from the Research Ethics Committee (REC), the study was
initiated. (3) The researchers took measures to maintain the anonymity of both the study
materials and the identity of the participants. After the completion of the study, the
results and the technical analysis were submitted to the Research Ethics Committee
(REC) and the personnel in charge of supervising radioprotection protocols within the
hospital. The researchers have conveyed their aim to disseminate the findings to the
broader engaged community, as a component of the Internal Week for the Prevention of
Work Accidents (SIPAT). Researcher adopts an exploratory cross-sectional design,
employing quantitative analysis for the closed-ended questions and qualitative analysis
for the open-ended questions. The employed theoretical framework was the Italian
Workers' Model (IWM), which was devised by Italian labourers during the 1960s and
1970s. This methodology aims to ascertain the hazards and harm that workers are
exposed to by reconstructing work processes and seeking technical guidance from
specialists who possess expertise in work processes and occupational risks, such as
physicians, psychologists, engineers, and social workers. Drawing upon acquired
knowledge, this study proposes measures to address and mitigate these hazards,
thereby improving working circumstances with the aim of enhancing well-being and
safeguarding the health of employees. However, to criticize the method, Casanave and
Li (2015) highlight the challenges faced by education scholars when constructing
conceptual frameworks for their dissertations and initial journal articles. They note that a
common issue encountered by novice scholars is the limited elaboration of their
theoretical framework, which tends to be confined to the introductory sections of their
work without substantial further exploration. In essence, it appears that the discussion
chapter lacks a distinct purpose beyond presenting information, even when a theoretical
or conceptual framework chapter is appropriately included early in the work and is well-
developed. Instead, the discussion chapter frequently commences by redundantly
restating and summarizing the research findings (4). Three impartial judges where are
two imaging professionals and one radiology technician has reviewed the questionnaire
and offered some comments, which the authors took into consideration. However, since
this is a study on radiation protection, the author is expected to have consulted with the
national radiation protection community or other relevant radiation protection community
representative.
45 women out of 59 participants in total took part in the study. Participants were from a
variety of fields, including hemodynamics, imaging, adult and neonatal intensive care
units, paediatrics, surgical centres, nursing, cleaning, and clinical engineering. Their
average age was 33.0 years (SD 7.2 years).They were a variety of health professionals,
the majority of whom were members of the nursing team (n = 45; 13 had advanced
degrees and 32 had technical training). In addition, there were eight other professionals
from various fields, six with higher degrees and two having completed high school, two
imaging industry professionals (one with a higher degree and one technician), and four
physicians. One may observe that as radiation protection becomes a more well
recognized, researched, and debated subject, standards or attitudes aimed at
safeguarding the workers' and users' health may be adopted. (5)
Conclusion
Employee resistance to participate may have been increased because of the technical
nature of the research topic, which is governed by particular standards, and their fear of
coming out as ignorant. Some people who were willing to complete the questionnaire
declined to respond to questions that required more than a simple "yes" or "no"
response effort. investigation found that most medical professionals involved in the study
had an inadequate or erroneous understanding of radiation protection. This condition
exists in the hospital work environment as a result of inadequate training received in
undergraduate or vocational programmes and a failure on the part of the employer, who
is also accountable for the worker's training, to fulfil its complementary function.
Nonetheless, the expert is present and eager to get the required instruction.
References
1. Bogard, J. S., Downing, D. J., Coleman, R. L., Eckerman, K. F., & Turner, J. E.
(2022). Atoms, radiation, and radiation protection. John Wiley & Sons.
2. Ploussi, A., & Efstathopoulos, E. P. (2016). Importance of establishing radiation
protection culture in Radiology Department. World journal of radiology, 8(2), 142–
147. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i2.142
3. Fernando Antonio de Almeida
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Faculty of Medical Sciences and
Health. Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazii.https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-
0545
4. Casanave, C P & Li, Y (2015) Novices' struggles with conceptual and theoretical
framing in writing dissertations and papers for publication. Publications, 3, 104-
119.
5. Kase KR. Radiation protection principles of NCRP. Health Phys. 2004;87(3):251-
7.
