Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers
(2022) In European Radiology 32(11). p.7896-7909- Abstract
Objectives: We explored the prevalence of health complaints subjectively associated with static magnetic field (SMF) and acoustic noise exposure among MR radiographers in Sweden, using CT radiographers as a control group. Additionally, we explored radiographers’ use of strategies to mitigate adverse health effects. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was sent to all hospitals with MR units in Sweden. MR and/or CT personnel reported prevalence and attribution of symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, illusion of movement, ringing sensations/tinnitus, headache, unusual drowsiness/tiredness, forgetfulness, difficulties concentrating, and difficulties sleeping) within the last year. We used logistic regression to test... (More)
Objectives: We explored the prevalence of health complaints subjectively associated with static magnetic field (SMF) and acoustic noise exposure among MR radiographers in Sweden, using CT radiographers as a control group. Additionally, we explored radiographers’ use of strategies to mitigate adverse health effects. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was sent to all hospitals with MR units in Sweden. MR and/or CT personnel reported prevalence and attribution of symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, illusion of movement, ringing sensations/tinnitus, headache, unusual drowsiness/tiredness, forgetfulness, difficulties concentrating, and difficulties sleeping) within the last year. We used logistic regression to test associations between sex, age, stress, SMF strength, working hours, and symptom prevalence. Data regarding hearing function, work-environmental noise, and strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms were also analysed. Results: In total, 529 out of 546 respondents from 86 hospitals were eligible for participation. A ≥ 20 working hours/week/modality cut-off rendered 342 participants grouped into CT (n = 75), MR (n = 121), or mixed personnel (n = 146). No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between groups. Working at ≥ 3T increased SMF-associated symptoms as compared with working at ≤ 1.5T (OR: 2.03, CI95: 1.05–3.93). Stress was a significant confounder. Work-related noise was rated as more troublesome by CT than MR personnel (p < 0.01). MR personnel tended to use more strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms. Conclusion: No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. However, working at 3T increased the risk of SMF symptoms, and stress increased adverse health effects. Noise nuisance was considered more problematic by CT than MR personnel. Key Points: • No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. • Working at ≥ 3 T doubled the odds of experiencing SMF symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, and/or illusion of movement) as compared to working exclusively at ≤ 1.5 T. • Work-related acoustic noise was less well mitigated and was rated as more troublesome by CT personnel than by MR personnel.
(Less)
- author
- Glans, Anton ; Wilén, Jonna ; Lindgren, Lenita ; Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella M. LU and Hansson, Boel LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2022-11
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Electromagnetic fields, Magnetic resonance imaging, Occupational health, Surveys and questionnaires, Tomography, X-ray computed
- in
- European Radiology
- volume
- 32
- issue
- 11
- pages
- 14 pages
- publisher
- Springer
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:35674823
- scopus:85131511465
- ISSN
- 0938-7994
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00330-022-08843-y
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- b285d2b9-9f87-45af-abfc-475538a26446
- date added to LUP
- 2022-12-27 16:02:25
- date last changed
- 2024-07-26 04:46:50
@article{b285d2b9-9f87-45af-abfc-475538a26446, abstract = {{<p>Objectives: We explored the prevalence of health complaints subjectively associated with static magnetic field (SMF) and acoustic noise exposure among MR radiographers in Sweden, using CT radiographers as a control group. Additionally, we explored radiographers’ use of strategies to mitigate adverse health effects. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was sent to all hospitals with MR units in Sweden. MR and/or CT personnel reported prevalence and attribution of symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, illusion of movement, ringing sensations/tinnitus, headache, unusual drowsiness/tiredness, forgetfulness, difficulties concentrating, and difficulties sleeping) within the last year. We used logistic regression to test associations between sex, age, stress, SMF strength, working hours, and symptom prevalence. Data regarding hearing function, work-environmental noise, and strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms were also analysed. Results: In total, 529 out of 546 respondents from 86 hospitals were eligible for participation. A ≥ 20 working hours/week/modality cut-off rendered 342 participants grouped into CT (n = 75), MR (n = 121), or mixed personnel (n = 146). No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between groups. Working at ≥ 3T increased SMF-associated symptoms as compared with working at ≤ 1.5T (OR: 2.03, CI<sub>95</sub>: 1.05–3.93). Stress was a significant confounder. Work-related noise was rated as more troublesome by CT than MR personnel (p < 0.01). MR personnel tended to use more strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms. Conclusion: No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. However, working at 3T increased the risk of SMF symptoms, and stress increased adverse health effects. Noise nuisance was considered more problematic by CT than MR personnel. Key Points: • No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. • Working at ≥ 3 T doubled the odds of experiencing SMF symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, and/or illusion of movement) as compared to working exclusively at ≤ 1.5 T. • Work-related acoustic noise was less well mitigated and was rated as more troublesome by CT personnel than by MR personnel.</p>}}, author = {{Glans, Anton and Wilén, Jonna and Lindgren, Lenita and Björkman-Burtscher, Isabella M. and Hansson, Boel}}, issn = {{0938-7994}}, keywords = {{Electromagnetic fields; Magnetic resonance imaging; Occupational health; Surveys and questionnaires; Tomography, X-ray computed}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{11}}, pages = {{7896--7909}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, series = {{European Radiology}}, title = {{Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise—comparison between MR and CT radiographers}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08843-y}}, doi = {{10.1007/s00330-022-08843-y}}, volume = {{32}}, year = {{2022}}, }