IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i8p4195-d536757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Occupational Radiation Exposure and Validity of National Dosimetry Registry among Korean Interventional Radiologists

Author

Listed:
  • Seulki Ko

    (Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Korea
    Graduate School of Public Health, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Kwang Pyo Kim

    (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Gyeonggi-do 02447, Korea)

  • Sung Bum Cho

    (Department of Radiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Ye Jin Bang

    (Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Korea
    Graduate School of Public Health, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Yae Won Ha

    (Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Won Jin Lee

    (Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul 02841, Korea
    Graduate School of Public Health, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

Abstract

The national dose registry (NDR) contains essential information to help protect radiation workers from radiation-related health risks and to facilitate epidemiological studies. However, direct validation of the reported doses has not been considered. We investigated the validity of the NDR with a personal dosimeter monitoring conducted among Korean interventional radiologists. Among the 56 interventional radiologists, NDR quarterly doses were compared with actively monitored personal thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) doses as standard measures of validation. We conducted analyses with participants categorized according to compliance with TLD badge-wearing policies. A correlation between actively monitored doses and NDR doses was low (Spearman ρ = 0.06), and the mean actively monitored dose was significantly higher than the mean NDR dose (mean difference 0.98 mSv) in all participants. However, interventional radiologists who wore badges irregularly showed a large difference between actively monitored doses and NDR doses (mean difference 2.39 mSv), and participants who wore badges regularly showed no apparent difference between actively monitored doses and NDR doses (mean difference 0.26 mSv). This study indicated that NDR data underestimate the actual occupational radiation exposure, and the validity of these data varies according to compliance with badge-wearing policies. Considerable attention is required to interpret and utilize NDR data based on radiation workers’ compliance with badge-wearing policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Seulki Ko & Kwang Pyo Kim & Sung Bum Cho & Ye Jin Bang & Yae Won Ha & Won Jin Lee, 2021. "Occupational Radiation Exposure and Validity of National Dosimetry Registry among Korean Interventional Radiologists," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-11, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:4195-:d:536757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4195/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4195/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Won Jin Lee & Eun Jin Jang & Kyeong Seo Kim & Ye Jin Bang, 2022. "Underestimation of Radiation Doses by Compliance of Wearing Dosimeters among Fluoroscopically-Guided Interventional Medical Workers in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-10, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:8:p:4195-:d:536757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.