Dataset Information

Chemical risk and safety awareness, perception, and practices among research laboratories workers in Italy.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Exposure to chemical compounds occurs in numerous occupational settings, among which the research and healthcare laboratories have not been adequately investigated. These settings are characterized by an extreme variability of the used compounds and by the frequent turnover of young researchers. The main objectives of the study were to explore the occupational exposure to hazardous chemical substances among research laboratory workers; to assess their awareness and perceptions regarding chemical hazards; to investigate adherence to guidelines on safe handling of chemical compounds; and to analyze the effects of several factors on these outcomes of interest.

Methods

The survey was conducted among research laboratories workers who were exposed to chemical substances during their activity. Subjects completed a questionnaire exploring knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to chemical hazards involved in research activities.

Results

Enrolled subjects were 237, for an 81.7% response rate. More than 90 hazardous chemical substances were used in the surveyed laboratories. A correct knowledge on hazardous chemicals was significantly more likely in younger researchers, in those manipulating a higher number of hazardous chemicals, and in those with a higher number of years of training in the attended laboratory; 54.4% of the workers said they felt very exposed to chemical risk. Correct practices in the laboratories were significantly more likely in researchers who perceived to have a low exposure to chemicals, but a high exposure to biological risk, who agreed with the statement that colleagues handle chemicals following safety procedures and who perceived to have received an adequate training in the management of accidents and first aid.

Conclusions

Our results showed significant gaps in knowledge and scarce preparedness in the adherence to safety processes to prevent and contain risks related to use of chemical compounds in research laboratories.

SUBMITTER: Papadopoli R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7298783 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Interactions with flying foxes pose disease transmission risks to volunteer rehabilitators (carers) who treat injured, ill, and orphaned bats. In particular, Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV) can be transmitted directly from flying foxes to humans in Australia. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and rabies vaccination can be used to protect against lyssavirus infection. During May and June 2014, active Australian flying fox carers participated in an online survey (SOAR: Survey Of Australian flying fox Rehabilitators) designed to gather demographic data, assess perceptions of disease risk, and explore safety practices. Responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically. A logistic regression was performed to assess whether rehabilitators' gender, use of PPE, threat perception, and years of experience predicted variation in their odds of being bitten or scratched. Eligible responses were received from 122 rehabilitators located predominantly on the eastern coast of Australia. Eighty-four percent of respondents were female. Years of experience ranged from <1 to 30 years (median 5 years). Respondents were highly educated. All rehabilitators were vaccinated against rabies and 94% received a rabies titre check at least every two years. Sixty-three percent of carers did not perceive viruses in flying foxes as a potential threat to their health, yet 74% of carers reported using PPE when handling flying foxes. Eighty-three percent of rehabilitators had received a flying fox bite or scratch at some point during their career. Carers provide an important community service by rescuing and rehabilitating flying foxes. While rehabilitators in this study have many excellent safety practices, including a 100% vaccination rate against rabies, there is room for improvement in PPE use. We recommend 1) the establishment of an Australia-wide set of guidelines for safety when caring for bats and 2) that the responsible government agencies in Australia support carers who rescue potentially ABLV-infected bats by offering compensation for PPE.

Project description:BackgroundLaboratory work provides students with the ability to process skills, perform experiments and tests, and interpret experimental data. Instead of traditional teaching methods, there are good laboratory experiences to develop a conceptual understanding of science. A lack of laboratory safety requirements and practice can affect the health of students, staff, and the environment. Therefore, the current study provides updated safety requirements and practice information.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate safety requirements and practices among teaching laboratories at the Health Institute 2021.MethodsAn institutional-based descriptive study design was conducted on November 15-20, 2020, among staff members of the Bule Hora University Institute of Health. Seventeen randomly selected academic staffs and laboratory assistants from 2 departments participated in the study. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire and an observational checklist. Finally, the data were coded and entered into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 for analysis. Data were then analyzed using simple quantitative descriptions such as frequency counts and percentages. The data are presented in a table.ResultsOf the safety requirements evaluated, only 33.3% (6) were available in the laboratory. Of the safety practices evaluated, 44.6% were used all the time, 37.7% were used occasionally, and 17.6% were never practiced in the laboratory by the respondents. Of his respondents, 58.8% had never been regularly inspected for laboratory safety, and 77% had never received training in laboratory safety. Observations show that teaching laboratories in health organizations lack safety manuals/first aid diaries or guidelines, laboratory building drainage systems, adequate ventilation, water flow, and appropriate laboratory sizes.ConclusionsThis study reveals poor laboratory safety practices and safety requirements in teaching laboratories. These limitations may cause health problems, environmental pollution, contamination, and chemical spills. Stakeholders should improve safety requirements and create awareness among staff, students, and lab assistants.

Project description:ObjectivesIn this study, we aimed to measure the awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues in biosecurity posed by infectious diseases dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the community. DURC is conducted today in many locations around the world for the benefit of humanity but may also cause harm through either a laboratory accident or deliberate misuse. Most DURC is approved by animal ethics committees, which do not typically consider harm to humans. Given the unique characteristics of contagion and the potential for epidemics and pandemics, the community is an important stakeholder in DURC.DesignSelf-administered web-based cross-sectional survey.ParticipantsParticipants over the age of 18 in Australia and 21 in the USA were included in the survey. A total of 604 participants completed the study. The results of 52 participants were excluded due to potential biases about DURC stemming from their employment as medical researchers, infectious diseases researchers or law enforcement professionals, leaving 552 participants. Of those, 274 respondents resided in Australia and 278 in the USA.OutcomesBaseline awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues surrounding DURC. Changes in perception from baseline were measured after provision of information about DURC.ResultsPresurvey, 77% of respondents were unaware of DURC and 64% found it unacceptable or were unsure. Two-thirds of respondents did not change their views. The baseline perception of high risk for laboratory accidents (29%) and deliberate bioterrorism (34%) was low but increased with increasing provision of information (42% and 44% respectively, p<0.001), with men more accepting of DURC (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.57, p=0.002). Postsurvey, higher education predicted lower risk perception of laboratory accidents (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p=0.02) and bioterrorism (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80, p=0.004).ConclusionThe community is an important stakeholder in infectious diseases DURC but has a low awareness of this kind of research. Only a minority support DURC, and this proportion decreased with increasing provision of knowledge. There were differences of opinion between age groups, gender and education levels. The community should be informed and engaged in decisions about DURC.

Project description:ObjectiveProxy consent respects patients' autonomy when they are incapable of providing consent for research participation. Healthcare providers need to understand the ethical regulations and practices relevant to the proxy consent process. Thus, this study aimed to assess the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers about research proxy consent in the ICU setting.MethodsA cross-sectional survey-based design was used in the study. Study participants were resident and specialist physicians, registered nurses, and registered pharmacists from ICU units in Jordan. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire developed to assess their knowledge and attitudes towards informed proxy consent for research studies conducted at the ICU.ResultsIn this study, 145 healthcare providers completed the study questionnaire. The healthcare providers agreed that the purpose of the proxy consent is to inform the participants about the potential benefits (66.9%) and risks (66.9%) related to the research to study and respect patient's autonomy (44%), to discuss alternative options (62.1%), and to protect the researchers from any litigation (84.1%). Regarding the assessment of proxy consent, 65.5% of respondents believed that relatives are considered as an authorized legal representative for an informed consent decision on behalf of their ICU patients (65.5%) as they are knowledgeable about patients' values and preferences and have the desire to provide the necessary help. Respondents also agreed that the informed consent process should explain research protocols and procedures (76.6%), therapeutic alternatives (84.1%), potential benefits (41.4%), and potential risks (44.1%) and that participation in the research is voluntary (66.9%). No significant differences in the responses were found among different groups of healthcare providers.ConclusionThe majority of healthcare providers had inadequate awareness about the ethical aspects regarding the informed proxy consent process. Providing training regarding the informed consent process can improve the quality of the proxy consent process in clinical research studies in the ICU setting.

Project description:BackgroundQualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.MethodsA survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.Results1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.ConclusionsThe proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.