Radon mitigation in the workplace in Spain: a cross-sectional interview-based study.

Lucía Martín-Gisbert, Alberto Ruano Raviña, Marta García-Talavera, Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Guadalupe García, Leonor Varela Lema, Mónica Pérez Ríos, Julia Rey-Brandariz
{"title":"Radon mitigation in the workplace in Spain: a cross-sectional interview-based study.","authors":"Lucía Martín-Gisbert, Alberto Ruano Raviña, Marta García-Talavera, Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Guadalupe García, Leonor Varela Lema, Mónica Pérez Ríos, Julia Rey-Brandariz","doi":"10.1016/j.gaceta.2024.102440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate radon mitigation frequency and possible determinants for mitigation among employers in Spain, before the new regulation came into force. We also aimed to assess the reasons for not mitigating radon.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, participants were systematically identified from all employers in Spain who had previously measured occupational radon through the Galician Radon Laboratory from 2015 until 2022. Employers responsible for at least one workplace where radon levels exceeded 300 Bq/m<sup>3</sup> were included. Participants were interviewed via phone call by a trained interviewer. The information was recorded using an ad hoc questionnaire created as a result of a review. We analyzed mitigation frequency according to working sector, company size and maximum radon levels found. Reasons for not mitigating were ranked according to frequency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 32 employers (response rate 91%). Overall mitigation frequency was 53%. Mitigation frequency increased with the company size. For workplaces ≥1000 Bq/m<sup>3</sup> mitigation frequency was 67%. Lack of perception of radon as a health risk was the main reason for not mitigating.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Enhancing radon mitigation frequency in the workplace is a major area of improvement. We are of the opinion that employers need guidance and availability of mitigation services to comply with the new regulatory requirements in Spain.</p>","PeriodicalId":94017,"journal":{"name":"Gaceta sanitaria","volume":"39 ","pages":"102440"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gaceta sanitaria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2024.102440","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate radon mitigation frequency and possible determinants for mitigation among employers in Spain, before the new regulation came into force. We also aimed to assess the reasons for not mitigating radon.

Method: In this cross-sectional study, participants were systematically identified from all employers in Spain who had previously measured occupational radon through the Galician Radon Laboratory from 2015 until 2022. Employers responsible for at least one workplace where radon levels exceeded 300 Bq/m3 were included. Participants were interviewed via phone call by a trained interviewer. The information was recorded using an ad hoc questionnaire created as a result of a review. We analyzed mitigation frequency according to working sector, company size and maximum radon levels found. Reasons for not mitigating were ranked according to frequency.

Results: We interviewed 32 employers (response rate 91%). Overall mitigation frequency was 53%. Mitigation frequency increased with the company size. For workplaces ≥1000 Bq/m3 mitigation frequency was 67%. Lack of perception of radon as a health risk was the main reason for not mitigating.

Conclusions: Enhancing radon mitigation frequency in the workplace is a major area of improvement. We are of the opinion that employers need guidance and availability of mitigation services to comply with the new regulatory requirements in Spain.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
西班牙工作场所的氡缓解:一项基于横断面访谈的研究。
目的:评估新法规生效前西班牙雇主的氡缓解频率和可能的缓解决定因素。我们还旨在评估不减少氡的原因。方法:在这项横断面研究中,系统地从西班牙所有雇主中确定参与者,这些雇主以前曾在2015年至2022年期间通过加利西亚氡实验室测量过职业氡。包括至少一个氡水平超过300 Bq/m3的工作场所的雇主。参与者由训练有素的面试官通过电话面试。这些信息是通过审查后创建的特别问卷来记录的。我们根据工作部门、公司规模和发现的最大氡水平分析了缓解频率。不减轻的原因按频率排序。结果:我们采访了32位雇主(回复率91%)。总体缓解频率为53%。缓解频率随着公司规模的增加而增加。≥1000 Bq/m3的工作场所,缓解频率为67%。没有认识到氡是一种健康风险是不采取缓解措施的主要原因。结论:提高工作场所氡缓解频率是改善的主要领域。我们认为,雇主需要指导和提供缓解服务,以遵守西班牙新的监管要求。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Rejections and retractions for ethical concerns in Gaceta Sanitaria, 2024. The influence of COVID-19 on the practice of physical activity in the European Union countries. John Leonard McKnight, November 22,1931-November 2, 2024. Reform of economic evaluation of medicines in Spain: proposals from the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Financing. Accompaniment of isolated people by volunteers from the neighborhood (ACOMPANYEM). A community trial with a nested qualitative study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1