Safety knowledge amongst 3B’s research group : basis for implementing safety measures when conducting experimental work

(1)

(2)

É AUTORIZADA A REPRODUÇÃO PARCIAL DESTA DISSERTAÇÃO APENAS PARA EFEITOS DE INVESTIGAÇÃO, MEDIANTE DECLARAÇÃO ESCRITA DO INTERESSADO, QUE A TAL SE COMPROMETE;

Universidade do Minho, ___/___/______

(3)

iii

Acknowledgments

Agradeço em primeiro lugar ao Prof. Dr. Rui L. Reis, por todo o apoio e orientação e por me ter dado esta oportunidade de, numa primeira fase frequentar as aulas, em prejuízo de algum trabalho e numa segunda fase me permitir desenvolver este trabalho de mestrado no Grupo de ,QYHVWLJDomR%·V.

Agradeço ao Prof. Dr. Pedro Arezes, por todo o apoio, orientação e pronta disponibilidade em me ajudar durante todo o meu trabalho. Obrigada.

Agradeço à Prof. Dra. Celina Leão pela ajuda fundamental na componente de estatística. Muito obrigada pela sua disponibilidade.

To all 3 B´s researchers that contributed to my work. Thanks! And work safely!

Agradeço a todos os meus amigos por todo o apoio que me deram e com quem sei que posso sempre contar. Em particular, à Martinez e à Joaninha. Obrigada.

Agradeço aos meus Pais e às minhas irmãs pela força e incentivo que sempre me deram. Um agradecimento especial para o meu Amor. Obrigada por todo o apoio e paciência.

(4)

(5)

v

Abstract

The main aims of this study were to assess the safety knowledge amongst a sample of researchers from a research group and to evaluate if the demographic characteristics of them affect their safety knowledge. A questionnaire form divided in seven groups namely General laboratory safety (Group A); Housekeeping and hygiene (Group B); Personal protection (Group C); Chemical safety (Group D); Biological safety (Group E); Waste disposal (Group F); Electrical and fire protection (Group G), was developed and validated to assess the safety knowledge of the researchers and to evaluate the relationship between their demographic characteristics and safety knowledge. The first section of the questionnaire requested information about demographic characteristics including age, gender, education, background and years of experience working in research laboratories. All groups had four questions each in a total of twenty-eight questions per questionnaire, and all questions had three possible answers to choose. The laboratory safety questionnaire was self-administered to 72 researchers, with a response rate of approximately 94%. This questionnaire was performed in English and had multiple-choice questions with different scores. Based on the distribution of scores and in the mean score of the questionnaires results, it was adopted the following knowledge score categories: less than 20 - poor knowledge; 20 to 30 - below average; 30 to 40 - good knowledge and higher than 40 - very good knowledge on safety. From these results, 22% of the respondents had scores lower than 30 and 4% had scores less than 20 corresponding, respectively, to scores below average and poor knowledge on safety. More than 50% of the respondents had good knowledge having scores higher than 30. Analysing the groups of questions, it was observed that the group A had the higher percentage (85%) and the group C had the lower percentage (61%) of the scores sum. Beside group C, other two groups had scores lower than the mean percentage of the overall results (75%), namely groups E (72%) and G (70%). The group B was the second topic safety with more answers correctly chose (91%). However it was also the group with higher percentage of answers incorrectly selected (15%). The mean knowledge score of researchers was 31 points, with the oldest group (t40y) presenting the lowest score (p=0.03). The differences between the other socio-demographic variables (gender, background, education level and experience) were not statistically significant, considering a p-value of 5%. Considering the overall results, it was possible to conclude that the researchers had good knowledge on safety and that only age seems to affect knowledge.

(6)

(7)

vii

Resumo

Os principais objectivos deste estudo foram avaliar o conhecimento dos investigadores de um grupo de investigação no que respeita a segurança laboratorial e perceber se as suas características pessoais afectam este conhecimento. Para avaliar este conhecimento sobre segurança laboratorial e se as características pessoais dos investigadores afectam o seu conhecimento em segurança, foi desenvolvido um questionário. Este questionário foi dividido em sete grupos, nomeadamente: Segurança geral em laboratórios (Grupo A); Limpeza e higiene (Grupo B); Proteção pessoal (Grupo C); Segurança química (Grupo D); Segurança biológica (Grupo E); Eliminação de resíduos (Grupo F) e Proteção eléctrica e contra-incêndios (Grupo G). A primeira parte deste questionário solicitava informação acerca das características demográficas dos investigadores, incluindo idade, género, nível de educação, curso de licenciatura e anos de experiência como investigadores. Todos os grupos continham quatro questões cada, num total de 28 e cada questão tinha três respostas possíveis. O questionário de segurança laboratorial foi dado a 72 investigadores, com uma taxa de resposta de aproximadamente 94%. Este questionário foi realizado em inglês e tinha questões de respostas múltiplas com diferentes pontuações. De acordo com as pontuações obtidas e a média destas, foi adoptada a seguinte categoria de pontuações: menor que 20 - fraco conhecimento; 20 a 30 - abaixo da média; 30 a 40 - bom conhecimento e maior que 40 - muito bom conhecimento em segurança laboratorial. Observou-se que 27% dos inquiridos obtiveram pontuações menores que 30 pontos e 4% obtiveram pontuações menores que 20 correspondendo, respectivamente, a pontuações abaixo da média, e a fraco conhecimento em segurança. Mais de 50% dos inquiridos obtiveram pontuações acima de 30 correspondendo a bom conhecimento em segurança. Após análise dos grupos de questões, verificou-se que o grupo A obteve a maior percentagem (85%) e o grupo C (61%) a menor percentagem da soma das pontuações. Para além do grupo C, outros dois grupos obtiveram pontuações menores que a média dos resultados obtidos (75%), os grupos E (72%) e G (70%). O grupo B foi o segundo grupo com mais respostas corretamente assinaladas (91%). No entanto, foi também o grupo com a maior percentagem de respostas incorretamente selecionadas (15%). Os investigadores obtiveram uma média de 31 pontos, tendo o grupo de investigadores mais velhos (t40 anos) obtido as pontuações mais baixas (p=0.03). As diferenças existentes entre as restantes características demográficas (género, curso, educação e experiência) não foram estatisticamente significativas (p<0.05). Considerando os resultados

(8)

viii obtidos, foi possível concluir que os investigadores têm um bom conhecimento sobre segurança laboratorial. No entanto, existem alguns tópicos de segurança laboratorial que deverão ser melhor analisados.

(9)

ix

Index of Figures

CHAPTER II

Figure 1 - Frequency of the education level of the population considering their backgrounds ... 27

CHAPTER III Figure 1 - Histogram of scores obtained by the 72 respondents on the safety questionnaire ... 40

Figure 2 - Sum of scores (in percentages) per group of questions ... 41

Figure 3 - Possible combinations of responses for questions with one correct answer... 41

Figure 4 - Possible combinations of responses for questions with two correct answers... 42

Figure 5 - Frequency of responses for Group A (General Laboratory Safety) ... 46

Figure 6 - Frequency of responses for Group B (Housekeeping and Hygiene) ... 48

Figure 7 - Frequency of responses for Group C (Personal protection) ... 49

Figure 8 - Frequency of responses for Group D (Chemical Safety) ... 51

Figure 9 - Frequency of responses for Group E (Biological Safety) ... 53

Figure 10 - Frequency of responses for Group F (Waste Disposal) ... 54

Figure 11 - Frequency of responses for Group G (Electrical safety and fire protection) ... 56

CHAPTER IV Figure 1 ² Mean knowledge score versus variable gender ... 68

Figure 2 ² Mean knowledge score versus variable age ... 69

Figure 3 ² Mean knowledge score versus education level ... 71

Figure 4 ² Mean knowledge score versus background ... 72

(14)

(15)

xv

Index of Tables

CHAPTER III

Table 1 - Frequency of sum of the scores obtained for each question ... 43 Table 2 - Frequency of each answer category by question and for each group ... 45 CHAPTER IV

Table 1 ² Demographic characteristics of respondents ... 65 Table 2 - Frequency and percentage of scores results obtained by the 72 questionnaires ... 67

(16)

(17)

xvii

List of Abbreviations

B - - - Biology

BE - - - Biological Engineering BCH - - - Biochemistry

BME - - - Biomedical Engineering BT - - - Biotechnology CH - - - Chemistry ME - - - Materials Engineering P - - - Physics PE - - - Polymers Engineering PH - - - Pharmacy VM - - - Veterinary Medicine BSL - - - Biosafety Level

ABSL - - - Animal Biological Safety Level BSc - - - Bachelor degree

MSc - - - Masters degree PhD - - - Doctorate degree

PPE - - - Personal Protective Equipment MSDS - - - Material Safety Data Sheet

HEPA - - - High-Efficiency Particulate Air

OSHA - - - Occupational Safety and Health Administration EU-OSHA - - - European Agency for Safety and Health at work

CE - - - Conformité Européenne (or European Conformity) HACCP - - - Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

(18)

(19)

INTRODUCTION

1

(20)

INTRODUCTION

2 1. Laboratory Safety

Laboratory safety is an important issue in any research organization involving laboratory works. Occupational safety is critical for the welfare of the workforce and for the organization. On one hand, there is a legal and moral obligation to provide a safe working environment for all people who have to use the laboratories, such as students, post-doctoral researchers, staff, technicians and others. On the other hand, an over-zealous enforcement of safety rules may be worthless and may also encourage having a less preventive behaviour. This is in part due to the fact that laboratory safety is still perceived to be an issue that is separated from laboratory research, and not part of the research process itself [1]. Safety has to be ingrained from day one in the laboratory, but it is difficult to persuade laboratory users that safety issues are not trivial or of minor importance. No one is so careful that they avoid taking any risks, nor is anyone totally unconcerned about their own safety [2]. A laboratory worker is exposed to various hazards or risk factors, depending on the type and functions of the laboratory. These hazards may include [3]:

x Chemical hazards: Toxic gases, fumes or liquids can cause poisoning, cancer, allergies and respiratory problems. Acids and bases may cause irritations and burns. Certain chemicals are known or suspected to harm fetuses or the reproductive health of adults. x Biological hazards: Biological agents such as viruses, bacteria, fungi or parasites can

enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, skin or eye contact, animal bites, needle stick injuries and cause infections, allergies and other diseases.

x Explosive hazards: Uncontrolled or unplanned chemical reactions can cause fires and dangerous explosions. Experiments carried out in closed systems can cause explosions, as well as high-pressure gas equipment and autoclaves. Vacuum equipment may implode. All pressure equipment should be tested or inspected regularly.

x General hazards: Wet, irregular or damaged floors can cause slips and falls. Crashed glassware can cause severe cuts. Entanglement of clothes, hair or fingers in rotating equipment such as centrifuges and mixers can cause bodily injury. Noise and vibration produced from equipment such as centrifuges and stirrers can cause hearing loss and stress.

x Ergonomic hazards: Musculoskeletal effects may result from working in awkward positions such as standing or bending over a laboratory bench for a long time. Repetitive

(21)

INTRODUCTION

3 movements from pipetting or transferring fluids and samples can also cause musculoskeletal disorders.

Laboratories involve a greater variety of possible hazard than most workplaces: many agents are highly flammable and/or explosive, and their careless handling and storage may result in fires and explosions [3]. Working with potentially hazardous agents is an everyday occurrence in a laboratory. To reduce or eliminate these hazards it is very important to be familiar with the safety rules practices. To know if the researchers work safely in the different laboratories, a laboratory safety questionnaire was designed accordingly to the laboratory practices performed in this research group.

In chapter II (Methodology) it is explained the design of the questionnaire used in this study, which was divided in seven safety groups: General laboratory safety; Housekeeping and hygiene; Personal protection; Chemical safety; Biological safety; Waste disposal; Electrical and fire protection. Subsequently these topics will be further developed.

To ensure that the laboratory remains a safe workplace, all researchers must be familiar with the rules and regulations (general laboratory safety), and should understand how to operate laboratory equipment safely and properly. Ensuring the safety of others is as important as ensuring their own safety [3].

Most safety experts will agree that the principal cause of laboratory accidents is poor housekeeping [4]. Good housekeeping in laboratories is essential to reduce risks and to protect the integrity of the experiments. Routine housekeeping must be relied upon to provide work areas free of significant sources of contamination [5]. Also, sinks should not be filled with dirty glassware. Moreover bench tops must be kept as free as possible from unnecessary apparatus (Housekeeping). A very common way to spread out potential hazardous chemical is through the hands (Hygiene). Students will commonly scratch parts of their faces, write in their notebooks and then hold the pen in their mouth, finish laboratory work and then go to have their meals, all without washing hands. Washing hands should be mandatory during the laboratory practices and before leaving the laboratory [6].

One of the most difficult challenges is the use of mandatory protective equipment. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is designed to protect workers from serious injuries or illnesses resulting from contact with chemical, radiological, physical, electrical, mechanical or other

(22)

INTRODUCTION

4 workplace hazards. Besides face shields, safety glasses, hard hats and safety shoes, protective equipment includes a variety of devices and garments such as goggles, coveralls, gloves, vests, earplugs, and respirators (personal protection). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires the use of PPE to reduce employee exposure to hazards when engineering and administrative controls are not feasible or effective in reducing these exposures to acceptable levels [7].

Hazardous situations can occur if students are not educated in general chemical safety, toxicological information, and procedures for handling and storage the chemicals they are using. The main routes of entry of chemicals are: inhalation, skin absorption, injection and ingestion. Inhalation and skin absorption are the predominant exposures in the laboratory. Accidental ingestion of chemicals can be avoided by a combination of good laboratory and hygienic practices such as washing hands and prohibiting foods, drinks, cosmetics and other personal objects inside laboratory. All potential exposures, i.e., inhalation, skin absorption, injection and ingestion, are described in the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available for each chemical or product [8]. In major accident hazard chemical units, a minor error (human or technical) can sometimes trigger on a chemical reaction that may go out of control and end up in major accidents [9].

Recognizing the unique characteristics of the laboratory workplace and the ever-growing diversity of laboratory experiments, OSHA adapted a general standard for occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals [8]. The main goals of the OSHA Laboratory Standards are to lessen the risk of injury or illness to laboratory workers by ensuring that they have the necessary information, equipment, training and support to safely work in the laboratory [10].

With the aim of protecting workers against risks to their health and safety, arising or likely to arise from exposure to biological agents at work, the European Parliament and the Council issued the Directive 2000/54/EC (18th September 2000) [3]. The previous Directive established the

following definitions:

x Biological agents: microorganisms, including those, which have been genetically modified, cell cultures and human endoparasites, which may be able to provoke any infection, allergy or toxicity.

(23)

INTRODUCTION

5 x Microorganism: a microbiological entity, cellular or non-cellular, capable of replication or

of transferring genetic material.

x Cell culture: the in vitro growth of cells derived from multicellular organisms.

According to the level of risk infection, biological agents were classified into four risk groups, as follows [11]:

Group 1 ² Biological agent means one that is unlikely to cause human disease.

Group 2 ² Biological agent means one that can cause human disease and might be a hazard to workers; it is unlikely to spread to the community; there is usually effective prophylaxis or treatment available.

Group 3 ² Biological agent means one that can cause severe human disease and present a serious hazard to workers; it may present a risk of spreading to the community, but there is usually effective prophylaxis or treatment available.

Group 4 - Biological agent means one that can cause severe human disease and is a serious hazard to workers; it may present a high risk of spreading to the community, but there is usually no effective prophylaxis.

Laboratories and animal facilities can be classified according to their design features, construction and containment capabilities. Combinations of these design characteristics represent levels of containment appropriate for work with agents in various risk groups. The term "containment" is used to describe safe methods for managing infectious agents in the laboratory environment where they are being handled or maintained. The purpose of containment is to reduce or eliminate the exposure of laboratory workers, other people and the outside environment to potentially hazardous agents. The three elements of containment include laboratory practice and technique, safety equipment, and facility design. For a given work, the biosafety level (BSL) or animal biological safety level (ABSL) may provide appropriate containment for various risk group agents. Each combination is specifically appropriate for the performed operations, the documented or suspected routes of LQIHFWLRXVDJHQWV·transmission, and for the laboratory function. The recommended biosafety level for an organism represents the conditions under which the agent can be ordinarily handled safely. There are four animal biological safety levels, designated from level 1 to 4, to work with infectious agents in mammals.

(24)

INTRODUCTION

6 [5]. The studied research group has one laboratory with appropriate containment to work safely, which is considered to be a biosafety level 2.

Laboratory practices generate different types of wastes that must be treated accordingly to its specifications. Each laboratory worker is responsible for ensuring that wastes are handled in a manner that minimizes personal exposure risks and the potential for environmental contamination (waste disposal). In this research group, the chemical waste is discarded according to the following groups: non-halogenated and halogenated organic solvents, solid chemical waste and sharp material in puncture-resistant leak proof containers. The segregation of wastes in halogenated and non-halogenated residues is done mainly because the chlorinated solvents (halogenated) are, in general, not flammable while non-chlorinated (non-halogenated) solvents are often flammable. It should be kept in mind, however, that the chlorinated solvents do decompose when burned. This results in high concentrations of toxic vapours, such as phosgene and hydrogen chloride [12]. The puncture-resistant leak proof containers are also used to discharge the sharp material from the biology laboratories. Besides this one, two more types of containers are used for the biological waste, namely biohazard waste containers that are used to discharge biological samples and the biohazard bags to contaminated material. The wastes in the biohazard bags are sterilized at 121ºC during 30 minutes, and afterwards it is discharge in the normal garbage. All the other waste is collected and treated by a certified company.

Prior to the use of electrical equipment, the researcher should first determine if it is safe by checking the following items [10]:

x Make sure the electrical equipment is not located in a hazardous environment such as a wet place or if it is exposed to high temperatures and flammable liquids and gases; x Make sure the power cord and plug does not have any defects such as cuts in the

insulation exposing bare wiring;

x If the equipment has an emergency turnoff switch and where it is located prior to use; x Make sure there is enough space around the electrical equipment or circuit in order to

maintain or operate.

Safety should be a top priority in chemical and biological laboratories. Even if all efforts have been made to minimize hazards in a laboratory, anything can become dangerous when it is used improperly [3]. A committed manager who is personally involved in safety activities and who

(25)

INTRODUCTION

7 takes an interest in working conditions conveys to the employees a sense of the importance of safety for the organization. As a result, the employees comply with regulations, take the proper safety measures, and participate actively in meetings and activities designed to promote improvements in their workplace [13].

There is no better solution for reducing worker injuries than eliminating safety hazards and risks through direct engineering or administrative controls. Thus any recommendation for behavioural interventions herein assumes that a behavioural safety process was considered necessary and appropriate in accordance with the widely accepted hierarchy of safety controls: elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls and personal protective equipment. Heinrich, for example, argued that the overwhelming majority of workplace injuries were the result of unsafe actions by workers. To prevent or reduce unsafe behaviours and thus risk of injuries, Heinrich supported engineering controls, as well as non-engineering interventions such as safety training, hiring on the basis of safety-related selection criteria, progressive disciplinary programs, and as a last resort termination of repeated safety violators [14]

A key element in every successful organization, in any successful accident prevention programme and occupational safety and health programme, is effective safety training. It improves behavioural skills, related knowledge and/or attitudes. Good knowledge of the processes, associated dangers and methods to prevent them are essential for workers [9]. Safety knowledge is anticipated to mitigate injuries. Researchers with better information regarding safety should be prepared to successfully overcome potentially dangerous situations. Managers and trainers also work under the assumption that providing knowledge about safety will reduce the likelihood of injury at work [15].

A safety management system reflects the organization´s commitment to safety and it has an important inIOXHQFH RI HPSOR\HH·V perceptions about its importance. Safety management systems are mechanisms that are integrated in the organization and designed to control the hazards that can affect workers health and safety [9]. According to Vinodkumar and Bhasi [9], there are six safety management practices, including the management commitment, safety WUDLQLQJDQGZRUNHUV·LQYROYHPHQWLQVDIHW\VDIHW\FRPPXQLFDWLRQDQGIHHGEDFNVDIHW\UXOHVDQG procedures and safety promotion policies. Regular communication about safety issues between managements, supervisors and workforce is an effective management practice to improve safety in workplace. Managements need to give the highest level of priority to safety training convincing

(26)

INTRODUCTION

8 the employees about the need for safety performance. Safety training may be designed to communicate good knowledge about the various processes, associated hazards and the safety measures to be taken by the employees in case of emergencies [9].

The fact, that organizational and social factors do influence safety performance led to extensive research in the field of safety culture and safety climate. Even though a clear consensus is yet to evolve on the dimensions to be included in safety culture and safety climate, it is widely accepted that they are good predictors of safety related outcomes (e.g., accidents and injuries) in both Western and Eastern societies [9]. As indicated by Schein [16] Organizational culture is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems. Safety culture is a part of the overall culture of an organization and is seen as affecting the attitudes and beliefs of members in terms of health and safety performance [17]. Characterized by the shared perceptions of employees, safety climate can be seen as an organizatiRQ·VWHPSRUDO´VWDWHRIVDIHW\µRUD VQDSVKRWRIWKHSUHYDLOLQJVWDWHRIVDIHW\ LQWKH organization at a discrete point of time. Some researchers believe that safety climate is a one-dimensional latent variable, while others have claimed that it is multi-one-dimensional, although they do not agree on the numbers of factors that constitute it. But one thing accepted by all is that safety management practices play a vital role in forming the safety climate in an organization [9]. Zhou et al. [17] developed a Bayesian Network (BN)1 to describe the relationships among safety

climate factors (workmate´s influence, management commitments, safety management systems & procedures, HPSOR\HH·V involvement and safety attitudes), personal experience factors (education experience, work experience and safety knowledge) and safety behaviour, which have influences on human behaviour pertinent to construction safety in China. According to this model, the safety management systems and procedures, work experience and education experience have an influence on safety knowledge, while safety knowledge influences safety attitudes. In this study, they found that the four most effective strategies to improve safety behaviour are achieved by controlling safety attitudes, HPSOR\HH·V involvement, safety

1 Bayesian network is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of random variables and their conditional dependencies via a directed acyclic graph.

(27)

INTRODUCTION

9 management systems and procedures, and safety knowledge, while the strategy controlling work experience is nearly the least effective. They conclude that safety behaviour was more sensitive to safety climate factors and less sensitive to personal experience factors, such as work experience and education experience. However, further analysis indicated that the effectiveness of a joint strategy should incorporate both safety climate factors and personal experience factors to improve safety behaviour [17].

In this dissertation, in order to assess (laboratory) safety knowledge and to evaluate if the demographic characteristics affect safety knowledge, it was decided to perform a survey, using a questionnaire as instrument to collect the information from the population in study. The next section serves to explain how the survey was planned step-by-step while in chapter II (Methodology) it is explained how the questionnaire was designed, validated, administered and also the data entry and analysis. The chapters III and IV are divided in two papers, respectively ´6DIHW\NQRZOHGJH² ORRNLQWRWKHVWDWHRIVDIHW\LQDUHVHDUFKJURXSµDQG´6DIHW\NQRZOHGJHDQG its relationship with demographic characteristics of the rHVHDUFKHUVµ

2. Survey

Surveys have become a widely used and acknowledged research method in most of the developed countries of the World [18]. A survey is a method of collecting information from people about their ideas, feelings, plans and beliefs, social, educational and financial background [19]. The idea of conducting a survey involves identifying a specific group or category of people and collecting information from some of them in order to gain insight into what the entire group does or thinks. However, undertaking a survey inevitably raises questions that might be difficult to answer: How many people need to be surveyed? How people should be selected? What kind of questions should be asked and how should they be posed to the respondents? What data collection methods should be considered? And, how should data be analysed and reported? Deciding to do a survey means committing oneself to work through a myriad of issues each of which is critical to do the ultimate success of the survey [20]. There are at least three good reasons for conducting surveys [19]:

x A policy needs to be set or a program must be planned (surveys to meet policy/program needs);

(28)

INTRODUCTION

10 x Evaluate the effectiveness of programs to change people´s knowledge, attitudes, health,

or welfare (surveys in evaluation of programs); x To assist researchers (surveys for research).

The essential first step is an analysis of the research problem and of the group to be surveyed. The main goal is a reliable and valid survey. Reliability refers to the consistency of the information you get (people´s answer do not keep changing) and validity refers to the accuracy of the information or its freedom from error.One way to ensure reliability and validity of the survey is to base the survey on one that someone else has developed and tested, other way is to do a pilot test. When pilot testing, anticipate the actual circumstances in which the survey will be conducted and make plans to handle them [19].

Surveys are based on the need to collect information (usually by questionnaire) about a well-defined population [21]. The development of the survey instrument or questionnaire is a crucial component of the survey research process [18]. The design variables over which surveyors have control are when the survey is to be given, how often and the number of the groups to be surveyed. A cross-sectional design provides a portrait of things as they are at a single point in time. Longitudinal surveys are used to find out about change [19]. The overwhelming majority of surveys rely on multiple-choice or closed²ended questions because they have proven themselves to be more efficient and ultimately more reliable. Their efficiency comes from being easy to use, the possibility to score and code the data for computer analysis. Also, their reliability is enhanced by the uniform data that they provide since everyone responds in terms of the same options [19]. However, there are also some disadvantages, which are the possibility of the respondent be unsure of the best answer and select one of the fixed responses randomly, or a respondent that misunderstands the question may randomly select a response or may select an erroneous response [18].

The population that is identified for formal interview represents the sampling frame for the survey research project. The population should possess the knowledge and information needed to fulfil the requirements of the research project. Sampling methods can be categorized into probability sampling and nonprobability sampling. In the first case, the probability of any member of the working population being selected to be a part of the eventual sample is known [18]. The resulting sample is said to be representative. Nonprobability samples include those acquired by accident$OVRLQFOXGHGDUHSXUSRVLYHVDPSOHVIRUZKLFKSHRSOHDUHFKRVHQEHFDXVHWKH\´NQRZµ

(29)

INTRODUCTION

11 the most or are more typical. The method of nonprobability sampling that was chosen for this study was the purposive sampling. The basic problem with purposive sampling is that the judgment of the surveyor may be in error [19]. However, this should not be a problem since all the workers from the research group in this study had the necessary characteristics to be evaluated.

Nevertheless, some of the potential respondents may not be available at the time of the survey and so it is possible that the response rate will not be as highest as in theory. The response rate is a ratio between the number of people who respond to a survey and the entire population. It is calculated by dividing the number of completed surveys by the number of surveys that could have been completed. The response rate should be the highest possible. If the sample was chosen statistically, then a low rate introduces error. If it was not, a poor response rate reduces the survey´s credibility [19].

Survey data can be used to describe the status of things, show changes and make comparisons. During sampling, choosing the sample and getting an adequate sample size and response rate are the main issues. The questions are most often, but not always, in a closed format in which a set of numbered response alternatives is specified. The resulting numerical, or quantitative, data are then entered into a data file for statistical analysis [21]. Analysing data surveys means calculation and averaging responses, looking at their relationships and comparing them (sometimes over time). The median is used to describe typical performance. Measures of variation (range, variance and standard deviation) help to describe the spread of scores or views. Commonly used survey data analysis techniques include descriptive statistics (mean, mode, median, numbers, percentage, range and standard deviation), correlations (Spearman, Pearson), comparisons (chi-square, t-test, analysis of variance) and trends (repeated measures analysis of variance, McNemar test). The power of a statistical test is the probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis [19].

Usually a survey takes the form of questionnaire that someone fills by itself or with assistance, or it can be conducted by interview in person or by telephone. The questionnaire, alternatively referred to as the instrument, typically contains a series of related questions for the respondents to answer. [21].

(30)

INTRODUCTION

12 There are many types of self-administered questionnaires, of which mail and Internet surveys are the best known. Self-administered questionnaires can be administered individually or group-wise. Interviewer initiated self-administer questionnaires are more costly than mail and Internet surveys and in some cases may be almost as costly as an in-person interview. Substantial cost savings can be made when self-administer questionnaires are given to larger groups of people simultaneously. Common to all self-administered questionnaires is that the respondents are the locus of control and complete the questions without interviewer involvement in the question-answer process. As a result, not only the questions and question-answer categories, but also all information about the study and the questionnaire must be carried with the questionnaire itself and the accompanying cover letter for instructions [20].

All questions in the questionnaire should receive an equal amount of testing. Thus, if there are some questions that are only asked to certain subgroups, then provision needs to be made to ensure that there are an adequate number of persons from that subgroup in the test sample. Testing is the only way of assuring that the survey questions written do indeed communicate to respondents as intended [20]. A pilot testing (or pre-test) quickly reveals whether people understand the directions provided and if they can answer the questions, and also how much time it takes to complete the survey. Pilot testing helps improve the response rate because it can eliminate several potential sources of difficulty such as poorly worded questions [19].

On the road from theoretical concepts to finalized questionnaire, one can identify three stages of testing: the development, the question testing and the dress rehearsal stages. The development stage is the time from preparatory and background work prior to actually writing any survey questions. The question testing stage involves the testing of survey questions, whether this is just some initial questions or a full draft questionnaire. The aim of this stage is to ensure that each individual question meets all the principles of good questionnaires design. The third stage is the dress rehearsal where the goal is to test the questionnaire as a whole, under real survey conditions (or as close as possible) with a much larger size than the question testing stage. Its focus is not on the viability of individual questions, but rather on assuring the smooth coordination of procedures and establishing correct survey routines. Unless a large dress rehearsal is explicitly needed, a better third stage is to conduct a second stage as the question testing level. In the first test, problems are identified and fixed. Ideally, the revised questions should be re-tested [20].

(31)

INTRODUCTION

13 There is international ambiguity around the terms pretesting and piloting used in the literature. Generally, in the United States and several European countries, stage 2 is called a pre-test and the full dress rehearsal at stage 3 is called a pilot. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, both stages 2 and 3 are called pilots [20]. In this study, the term pretesting was used since it complies better with the definition of the second stage of testing (questions testing stage). Group administration of self-administered surveys is mainly used in the context of organizational or educational research, where the population contains natural groups of respondents, which makes it a very efficient way of data collection. In this context, questionnaires are given to the group as a whole, with a person present to deliver introduction, to clarify problems and to assist in the survey process [20]. This was the method used in this study.

(32)

INTRODUCTION

(33)

MOTIVATION AND AIMS

15

MOTIVATION AND AIMS

(34)

MOTIVATION AND AIMS

16 In order to minimize the potential exposure to hazardous materials and the improperly handling of them, before starting to work in the laboratory, all the researchers must read and sign an LQWHUQDOGRFXPHQWFDOOHG´*RRGLaboratory and 6DIHW\3UDFWLFHVµDFFHSWLQJWRIROORZWKRVHUXOHV However, laboratory workers tend to break safety protocols concerned with the handling of certain materials and the usage of appropriate protective equipment.

Until now, there is no register of any accident in the studied research group, only the occurrence of minor accidents. One of the accidents was liquids VSLOODJH LQ VWXGHQWV· eyes. This only happened because none of the affected researchers were using safety glasses at that moment. Almost all the researchers have their own safety glasses and for those that do not have their own safety glasses, they are also available in all laboratories. However, almost none of the researchers use safety glasses when working with hazard materials. During six years working as laboratory technician, several errors were observed in the laboratory practices. One of the most common observed errors was manipulation of hazardous products outside of the chemical hood. The explanation for this behaviour is not clear. It seems that they are not aware of the hazard or just do not show concern about their safety or the safety of their colleagues. Other issue is that certain researchers do not seem to know the difference between some general equipment, such as, a chemical hood and a laminar flow cabinet. Some comparison is also observed regarding some general reagents used regularly, such as halogenated and non-halogenated products. Some of the researchers do not know the difference between these previous ones. These laboratory practices observed during the latter years were the motivational boost to perform this study and to try to better understand which are the difficulties or lack of knowledge of the researchers when working in the laboratory and try to solve them. Mainly because there are students and researchers with various backgrounds and different education levels working at the %·s laboratories, it is important to assess their safety knowledge and to unveil whether different socio-demographic characteristics affect their safety knowledge. To perform this study a laboratory safety questionnaire was developed based on laboratory procedures RI WKH %·V Research Group and also on general safety questions from other safety questionnaires found in the literature. The main aims of this study are to evaluate the safety knowledge amongst a sample of researchers doing research in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine field and understand if their demographic characteristics affect safety knowledge. Some suggestions were proposed accordingly to the survey findings for posterior implementation.

(35)

CONTEXT

17

CONTEXT

(36)

CONTEXT

18 7KH SUHVHQW ZRUN ZDV GHYHORSHG DWWKH %·V 5HVHDUFK *URXS RI WKH 6FKRRO RI (QJLQHHULQJ LQ strict collaboration with the Department of Production and Systems Engineering both of the University of Minho. 7KH%·V(Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics) Research Group was established in 1998 at the University of Minho and supports a multidisciplinary and highly skilled team, which works at the interface of biotechnology, biology, biomedical engineering and materials science. Major research areas at our group include, among others, new materials development, drug delivery, tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, nanomedicine, and stem cell isolation and differentiation. In 2008, the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, that has branches in 22 locations in 13 different countries, was formed as a result of the European Network of Excellence (NoE) EXPERTISSUES funded under the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) being its Headquarters based on the %·V Research Group facilities.

7KH JRDO RI WKH %·V 5HVHDUFK *URXS LV WR GHYHORS QRYHO ELRPDWHULDOV e.g. scaffolds, membranes, nano/microparticles) based on natural polymers for applications in drug delivery and tissue engineering of bone, cartilage and skin. Research at the %·VLVVXSported by multiple grants from european (The Framework Programmes for research and technological development from the European Union) and national (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) funding agencies, innovation agencies, cross-border programs, as well as by industrial contracts. 7KH%·V5HVHDUFK*URXSKDVEHHQLQWKHODVWIHZ\HDUVRQHRIWKHPRVWDFWLYHJURXSVLQ(XURSH on attracting highly competitive large grants for research, educational programs, and supporting infrastructures7KH%·V5HVHDUFK*URXSKDVEHHQEXLOWEDVHGRQDQLQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\UHVHDUFK approach where collaboration and cooperation are hallmarks of its culture.

This interdisciplinary group is committed to provide a safe and healthy working environment for researchers, staff and faculty. An effective safety management system will not only be helpful to LPSURYHWKHHPSOR\HHV· VDIHW\ NQRZOHGJHEXWDOVRWRPRWLYDWHWKHP 0RWLYDWLRQLQFUHDVHVWKH awareness, interest and willingness of the employees for better safety performance [9]. In this scope, it is very important to assess their knowledge in laboratory safety practices to understand in which area(s) the researchers have more difficulties, and how their personal characteristics (gender, background, education level, age and years of experience) influence their safety knowledge.

(37)

CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART

19

CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART

(38)

20 To our knowledge this is the first survey on laboratory safety knowledge in Portugal or at least with published data. However, it has been developed some studies on laboratory safety knowledge performed in other countries. Some of these studies on laboratory safety knowledge are analysed below.

Laboratory safety should become an important issue in all high school, college and university science curricula. Ritch and Rank [22], believe that the way to improve student laboratory safety knowledge is not complicated: teach the material and test students on the material. After assessing the student safety knowledge at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, they conclude that to increase student laboratory safety knowledge, the instructor should adequately cover all topics deemed necessary in a specific laboratory, should cover topics using a variety of techniques and also should incorporate laboratory safety issues into the evaluation process for the laboratory [22].

Most laboratories, whether chemical or biological, use chemicals that may be hazardous or become hazardous because of some chemical reaction [23]. Neal Langerman [24], concluded that most academic laboratories are unsafe places for work or study and that only by a major change in the way the laboratory safety is practiced, the situation will improve. All laboratory staff, both students and technicians, must receive specific training relevant on the labs they work in and on the tasks they perform. Experience and educational levels vary, and those with more experience and education will have more responsibility. All researchers must be committed to a high level of safety performance. When students work in a research lab, they are working in an environment that is necessary more independent activity that in a structured teaching lab. Students, both undergraduate and graduate, cannot be assumed to have the required experience or maturity to work in the higher risk setting of a research lab without a clear and present supervision [24].

A survey of safety in High School Chemistry Laboratories of Illinois was also performed in order to obtain pertinent information regarding the safety practices at this school [25]. They designed a questionnaire concerning the problems encountered most often in the laboratory. This questionnaire had two sections, the first one was composed of demographic questions (i.e., background, gender, age, degree and experience), and the second section regarded a number of specific areas involving laboratory safety. The design is quite different from the one applied in the present study. The areas involving laboratories safety were: serious past laboratory accidents,

(39)

21 present knowledge as to extent of teacher liability, names of safety films and extended use of safety glasses [25].

Early in 1965, the Research and Development Laboratories of Sun Oil Company examined the safety performance to determine how to maintain an injury-free working record for an extended period [26]. In 1972, due to the costs of HPSOR\HH·V time for the training program, the Director VXJJHVWHGD´QHHGDQDO\VLVµWR determine most needed training and priority subjects. They also assessed employee attitudes towards safety in order to shape their training program to strengthen their interest and cooperation. The questionnaire had 100 questions, 33 tested knowledge on flammability, toxicity, first aid, laboratory procedure, emergency action, safety organization and safety responsibility. The other 67 questions were about the opinions or attitudes of research personnel. In this study they found that employees with more technical education scored appreciably higher than those without college training. However, employees ZLWK0DVWHU·s degree scored slightly better that those with PhD degrees. The results of the 67 questions were grouped in four categories: attitudes toward training, attitudes toward safety administration, attitude expressed as independence and somewhat vague grouping termed interactions. Attitude of Research & Development (R&D) employees toward safety administration and employees was generally quite favourable. The overall responses on safety knowledge were positive, confirming that previous training was thought to be fairly effective. The survey showed that R&D employees do not fit the usual picture of independent researchers as far as safety is concerned. All groups felt an appreciable concern for their fellow workers. A large majority wanted to be told when their work procedures are approved or disapproved by their supervisor. However, there were those who felt that mechanical failures are largely responsible for accidents and others felt that there are some people whose practices are unsafe. Employees felt that their safety performance affects the well being of others and that supervisors should correct unsafe work practices in detail. Some of the employees made some excellent suggestions to improve safety that were evaluated and acted upon immediately [26].

The evaluation of safety knowledge is used in other areas, such as food safety [27-30], health [31, 32] and agriculture [15].

When reviewing the literature, a survey was found on knowledge on slaughterhouses and meat plants from northern Portugal, to evaluate and compare the level of general knowledge and also practice of meat handlers that have received professional training [33]. The authors

(40)

self-CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE ART

22 administer a questionnaire of twenty-four multiple-choice questions with three or four possible DQVZHUVLQFOXGLQJ´GRQRWNQRZµIRUWKHSXUSRVHRIPLQLPL]LQJWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIVHOHFWLQJWKH correct answer by chance. Of the twenty-four questions, fourteen ZHUHGHVLJQDWHG´NQRZOHGJHµ which intended to assess the resSRQGHQW·s knowledge about HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point), microbiologic hazards development, food poisoning and food borne illness, safety and health requirements, and other issues, and ten questions were designaWHG´SUDFWLFHµ7KH\ verified that besides almost thirteen years of experience, the respondents had poor results in some of the food safety topics. A possible explanation was attributed to the low educational level, in a group with an average age of thirty-five years old. These three variables, age, education level and years of experience will also be analysed in the present study to understand their possible impact on laboratory safety knowledge. The authors concluded that there is a need to develop training methods that proved to change behaviour as well as reporting knowledge. Training activities closely associated with work environment would be more appropriate than food hygiene courses that operate divorced from the workplace and use solely knowledge-based assessment techniques. Training will only lead to an improvement in food safety if the knowledge instructed leads to desired changes in behaviour at the workplace [33].

According to Westaby and Lee [15], the time spent working was strongly associated with safety knowledge, as working individuals presented higher levels of safety knowledge than nonworking individuals. The results of this study suggested that participating in safety activities was positively associated with safety knowledge and safety consciousness. It is likely that such activities impact the depth of information processing, which translates into crystallized attitudes and knowledge regarding safety. As predicted and replicating past research, males demonstrated both less safety consciousness and higher levels of dangerous risk taking than females. Safety consciousness was negatively related to injury. Those individuals with high levels of safety consciousness were less likely to have injuries than individuals with low levels of safety consciousness. Unexpectedly, this study did not find a negative association between safety knowledge and injuries. Those individuals that reported high levels of safety knowledge also reported more injuries. This may be explained by the fact that people being placed on more dangerous work environment are also provided with greater safety-related information. The time spent working was positively associated with the safety knowledge. Thus, the working individuals may have been learning about safety because of the time spent in higher risk work environment. However, they may not have been learning enough to reduce injury rates compared to nonworkers [15].

(41)

23 According to Vinodukmar and Bhasi [9], safety training, safety communication, and safety rules and procedures predict safety knowledge. Regular evaluation of safety knowledge, level of safety motivation and safety skills must also be made an integral part of safety training programmes. These three safety management practices which contributes towards transferring information, regarding the methods of carrying out a job in the healthiest and safest way possible is expected to improve safety knowledge of the employees [9].

(42)

(43)

CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY

25

CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY

(44)

26 1. Population profile

The population of interest for this study included all the researchers working daily in the %·V laboratories. This population of 92 researchers was composed by 27 researchers with a PhD degree, 31 researchers with a MDVWHUV·degree (MSc) and 34 graduate researchers (BSc degree). However, 10 of these researchers were excluded from the survey because they were performing laboratory work in other countries. Hence, the population that was accessible to the study consisted of all persons performing experimental work in the laboratories during the time of the present study, which corresponds to 82 researchers. To validate the questionnaire, 5 of the researchers with PhD degree in different areas were asked to perform a pre-test. These subjects were excluded from the survey sample to avoid biased results. Thus, 21 Post-doctoral fellows, 30 with MSc degree and 26 with BSc degrees making up a total of 77 researchers, 39% of males and 61% of females, composed the available population for this survey. Their ages were between 23 and 42 years old with an average of 32 years old. The mean of age for the subgroup of researchers with a PhD degree was 35 years old while for both subgroups with MSc and BSc degrees the mean was of 28 years old. Considering the background of the population, it was seen that 22 researchers had a background in biology, 13 in chemistry, 19 in biomedical engineering, 8 in materials and polymers engineering and 15 researchers with backgrounds in several areas such as biochemistry, physics, biotechnology, biological engineering, veterinary medicine and pharmaceutics which were grouped together. The figure 1 presents the distribution of the available population considering the different education levels and grouped according to their backgrounds. 7KH VDPSOLQJ IUDPH ZDV REWDLQHG IURP WKH ZHEVLWH RI WKH %·V 5HVHDUFK Group. For those researchers with incomplete background information, the required data was obtained directly.

(45)

27 Figure 1 - Frequency of the education level of the population considering their backgrounds.

2. Questionnaire design

A questionnaire form (appendix B) was designed to assess the safety knowledge of the researchers and to understand if their demographic characteristics affect the safety knowledge. The first section of the questionnaire requested information about demographic characteristics, including age, gender, education, background and years of experience working in research laboratories. This information is important because it will be used to show relations between parameters such as the age of the participants or the education level and the safety knowledge. The second section of the questionnaire contained questions regarding a number of specific areas involving laboratory safety. Hedberg and Bussell [34] divided their laboratory safety questionnaire in ten main safety topics. However, some of those topics were not applied to this organizational context. The questionnaire used in this survey was adapted according to the laboratory procedures of the population in study, and it was decided to divide the questionnaire in seven safety main groups, namely: ´Group A - *HQHUDO ODERUDWRU\ VDIHW\µ ´Group B - +RXVHNHHSLQJ DQG K\JLHQHµ ´Group C - 3HUVRQDO SURWHFWLRQµ ´Group D - &KHPLFDO VDIHW\µ ´Group E - BiologicDO VDIHW\µ ´Group F - :DVWH GLVSRVDOµ DQG ´Group G - Electrical and fire SURWHFWLRQµ. Some of the questions were adapted from the literature [35-40] [25, 41, 42] and others were based on the laboratory document of the research group entitleG´Good Laboratory

8 6 1 3 3 6 4 ₁₃ 2 5 8 3 5 3 7 0 5 10 15 20 25

Biology Chemistry Biomedical

Engineering Materials/Polymer Eng. Others

Frequ

en

cy

(46)

28 and Safety Practicesµ Each group contained four multiple-choice questions and each question had three possible options that could include one or two correct answers. For each correct answer a score of one (1) and for each wrong answer a score of minus one (-1) were attributed. For the no response it was attribute a score zero (0). This evaluation was made according to other multiple-choice questionnaires. Supposing that a respondent answered correctly to all the questions, the maximum score would be 42 points. At the end of the questionnaire a blank field was available for additional comments.

3. Questionnaire validation

The questionnaire was pre-tested (appendix A) with five Postdoctoral fellows with an average of 13 years of experience working in research laboratories in different areas namely, biochemistry, chemistry, materials engineering, biotechnology and biological engineering. This pre-test was performed individually and the average time of completion was 15 minutes.

All the suggestions made by these researchers were reviewed and some changes were applied to the questionnaire. In group A (General laboratory safety) one question was removed since all the respondents considered it ambiguous. The option b from question 4 of group B (Housekeeping and Hygiene) was replaced by other option, since it was of difficult comprehension. The question 1 of group C (Personal protection) was moved to group A since it was more adequate to this topic. Also, in this group the option c of question 4 was removed and the option a and b were jointed only in one option. This question had three correct options and it was decided to have a maximum of two correct options per question. In group E (biological safety), the option b of question 2 was removed and the option a was divided in two options (a and b). The options a and b of question 4 of group E were modified in order to simplify them. In group F (waste disposal) only option b of question 4 was modified, since it was unclear. The questions and options of group G (Electrical safety and fire protection) were unchanged.

The questionnaire was rearranged according to the comments of the pre-test performed by these researchers and some questions were discussed personally. One new question was developed for group A and new options were developed or modified in the other groups as mentioned above. After applying all the changes to the questionnaire, these were discussed with the five

(47)

29 researchers which all agreed to use them. These pre-test results were not included in the overall study results.

4. Questionnaire administration

The questionnaire was administered simultaneously to all UHVHDUFKHUV· working on the 6th of May

of 2011. An E-mail was previously sent to all the researchers requesting their presence on this specific day to perform the laboratory safety questionnaire. It was explained to the respondents that the questionnaire had multiple-choice questions and also that the demographic characteristics were mandatory to fill. Since this research group is a multicultural group and the official language is English, the questionnaire was administered in English to the entire group. From 77 printed questionnaires, 72 were performed and received. This represents a response rate of approximately 94%. The 6% of the researchers that did not respond to the questionnaire did not refuse but just were not available at that time to perform it. Ten of the received questionnaires were not completed, meaning that at least one question was not answered by the respondents. Nevertheless, these questionnaires were also taken into consideration since it seemed important to evaluate the questions that were not responded. Consequently, 72 forms were evaluated for this survey.

5. Data entry and analysis

Questionnaire responses were entered into an electronic database (Microsoft Office Excel 2007), and entry-validation checks were performed on all questionnaires by manually comparing the database and the hard-copy versions. Data were presented using descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies and percentages. The statistical analysis was done using the software SPSS 19.0 statistical package. Mean scores on the overall knowledge questionnaire and on specific safety concepts were calculated. In all the hypothesis testing, the significance level or critical p-value was considered to be 5%, being the results statistically significant when the results occur less than 5%.

(48)

(49)

CHAPTER III. SAFETY KNOWLEDGE - LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A RESEARCH GROUP

31

CHAPTER III.

SAFETY KNOWLEDGE ² LOOK INTO THE STATE OF SAFETY IN A

(50)

32

Safety knowledge ² look into the state of safety in a

Research Group

L. G. Gomes1,2,* , C. P. Leão3, Rui L. Reis1,2 , P. M. Arezes3

1 %·V 5HVHDUFK *URXS ² Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, University of Minho,

Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Guimarães, Portugal

2 ,&96%·V- PT Government Associate Laboratory Braga/Guimarães - Portugal

3 Department of Production and Systems, Engineering School of University of Minho, Campus de

Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal

*Corresponding author: Liliana Gouveia Gomes

%·V 5HVHDUFK *URXS ² Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, University of Minho, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence on Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Avepark, Zona Industrial da Gandra, S. Cláudio do Barco, 4806-909, Guimarães, Portugal

(51)

33 Abstract

The main aim of this study was to assess the safety knowledge amongst a sample of researchers conducting research in the area of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. To perform this study, a questionnaire form divided in seven groups namely, General laboratory safety (Group A); Housekeeping and hygiene (Group B); Personal protection (Group C); Chemical safety (Group D); Biological safety (Group E); Waste disposal (Group F); Electrical and fire protection (Group G), was developed and validated. All groups had four questions each in a total of 28 questions per questionnaire, and all questions had 3 possible answers. The laboratory safety questionnaire was self-administered to 72 researchers, with a response rate of approximately 94%. This questionnaire was conducted in English and had multiple-choice questions with different scores. Based on the distribution of scores and in the mean score of the questionnaires results (31), it was adopted the following classification: less than 20 - poor knowledge; 20 to 30 - below average; 30 to 40 - good knowledge and higher than 40 - very good knowledge on safety. From these results, 22% of the respondents had scores lower than 30 and 4% less than 20, corresponding, respectively, to scores below average and poor knowledge on safety. More than 50% of the respondents presented good knowledge with scores higher than 30. Analysing the groups of questions it was observed that, the group A had the higher percentage (85%) and the group C had the lower percentage (61%). Beside group C, other two groups had scores lower that the mean percentage of the overall results (75%), namely groups E (72%) and G (70%). The group B was the second topic safety with more answers correctly chose (91%), but it was also the group with higher percentage of answers incorrectly selected (15%). Analysing the overall results, the answers correctly selected corresponded to a percentage of 82%, 7% of the answers were incorrectly selected and 1% were not responded. With these results, it was possible to say that mostly researchers presented good knowledge on safety. However, there are some safety issues that should be better discussed. It was suggested to implement measures to improve safety knowledge in specific safety topics.