| Objective:To understand the present situation of radiological health technical serviceinstitutions in China，to analyze the existing problems and put forward reasonablesuggestions, and to provide scientific reference for further development, utilization andoptimization of radiological health technical service.Methods: Using the stratified cluster sampling method,10provincial administrative regionswere chosen, including Jilin, Tianjin. Zhejiang, Guangdong, Yunnan, Sichuan, Hubei, Jiangxi,Shanxi and Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. The radiological health technical serviceinstitutions that have achieved qualification were conducted to questionnaire survey. Thequestionnaire includes the basic aspects of the case, radiation health professional andtechnical personnel and the work carried out in recent three years and so on.Results:(1) This study investigated a total of217radiological health service agencies,including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) institutions accounted for77.0%, private enterprises accounted for12.9%, occupational disease preventionhospital accounted for7.4%, research institute accounted for2.3%and the universityhealth center accounted for0.5%. Municipal and above level institutions accounted for66.4%of the total and counties (cities, districts) level institutions accounted for33.6%.Public institutions accounted for87.1%and private institutions accounted for12.9%.All private agencies achieved qualification in the last five years,67.9%of theinstitutions achieved in the last three years.(2) The median age was42years amongpublic institutions radiation health professionals, and32years old among privateinstitutions radiation health professionals. The age of radiation health professionals haddifference between public and private institutions (Z=-7.051,P<0.001). The rehiredstaffs in public institutions accounted for3.7%of the total number of public institutionstaffs, the ones in private institutions accounted for17.6%of the total number of private institution staffs.(3) The match rate of profession and the industry amongradiation health professionals had difference between public and private institutions(2=62.597,P<0.001). The match rate in public institutions (80.3%) was higher thanprivate institutions (56.9%).(4) The difference on distribution of technical titles amongradiation health professionals between municipal and above level and counties (cities,districts) level institutions was statistically significant (2=32.454,P<0.001). Theprofessionals with senior technical title in municipal and above level institutions(34.4%) were more than counties (cities, districts) level institutions (28.0%). Thetechnical titles among radiation health professionals had difference between public andprivate institutions (2=186.243,P<0.001). The professionals with senior andintermediate technical titles in public institutions (35.5%,34.0%) were more thanprivate institutions (24.8%,21.8%) respectively.(5) The difference on distribution ofeducation level among radiation health professionals between municipal and abovelevel and counties (cities, districts) level institutions was statistically significant(2=40.402,P<0.001). The professionals with master and above, undergraduate degreein municipal and above level institutions (16.4%,58.7%) were more than counties(cities, districts) level institutions (8.2%,49.8%) respectively. The education levelamong radiation health professionals had difference between public and privateinstitutions (2=39.467,P<0.001). The professionals with master and above, collegeand technical secondary degree in public institutions (16.5%,21.1%,9.6%) were morethan private institutions(9.0%,14.6%,3.0%) respectively.(6) In2011, for radiologicalhealth technical service institutions in ten provinces nationwide, the total number ofpre-assessment work was818, the number of control evaluation work was1418, thenumber of radiological protection test for radiation treatment places was12290, thenumber of protective performance test for clinical equipment was7658and the numberof individual dose monitoring was108901. In2012, the total number of the abovementioned items were, in order,1206,1772,14685,9899and120589. In2013, the totalnumber of the above mentioned items were, in order,1294,2066,13802,11402and 133225.(7) In recent three years, the number of pre-assessment work(Z=-3.735,P<0.001), control evaluation work (Z=-3.710,P<0.001), protection test forradiation treatment places (Z=-5.174,P<0.001), protective performance test for clinicalequipment (Z=-3.777,P<0.001) and individual dose monitoring (Z=-2.879,P<0.001)had difference between municipal and above level and counties (cities, districts) levelinstitutions respectively. The counties (cities, districts) level institutions conducted lesswork than municipal and above level institutions. In recent three years, both ofpre-assessment work (Z=-1.954,P=0.051) and individual dose monitoring (Z=-0.475,P=0.635) had no difference between public and private institutions. However, the number ofpre-assessment work (Z=-2.322,P=0.020), radiological protection test for radiation treatmentplaces (Z=-3.538,P<0.001) and protective performance test for clinical equipment(Z=-4.372,P<0.001) had difference between public and private institutions respectively. Thepublic institutions conducted less work than private institutions.Conclusions:(1) All levels of CDCs play a dominant role in radiological healthtechnical service institutions, meanwhile, the development of private enterprise is justgetting its start.(2) The radiation health professionals in private institutions are muchyounger than the ones in public institutions. Simultaneously, the rehired staffs inprivate institutions are more than public institutions. The match rate of profession andthe industry among radiation health professionals in private institutions is lower thanpublic institutions.(3) The distributions of technical titles and education levelbetween municipal and above level and counties (cities, districts) level institutions aredifferent respectively. Also, the distributions of technical titles and education levelbetween public and private institutions are different respectively.(4) In recent threeyears, for radiological health technical service institutions in ten provinces, thenumber of pre-assessment work, control evaluation work, protection test for radiationtreatment places, protective performance test for clinical equipment andindividual dose monitoring show an upward trend.(5) In recent three years, thenumber of pre-assessment work, control evaluation work, protection test for radiation treatment places, protective performance test for clinical equipment andindividual dose monitoring have difference between municipal and above level andcounties (cities, districts) level institutions respectively. The municipal and abovelevel institutions conduct more work than counties (cities, districts) level institutions.(6) The number of pre-assessment work, radiological protection test for radiationtreatment places and protective performance test for clinical equipment has differencebetween public and private institutions respectively. The private institutions conductmore work than public institutions. |
PDF Full Text Request