Öz

The objective of this study is to determine theperception of environmental health risks directedto themselves, their families, and the society amongprofessionals in Directorate of Ministry of Healthand Ministry of Environment in Kocaeli. In thisdescriptive study, data was collected through faceto face interviews from 132 individuals physician,technician, engineer etc. who have been workingin health care services and environment agency. Ofall 41.6% of the participants were physicians, 39.4%were environment technicians and 19.0% wereother engineer, technicians etc. professionals. A questionnaire was used including socio-demographic variables and perceptions of some environmental risks. Mean age of participants was 30.7 ± 7.4 year, and 25% of them was female. Industrial pollution risks were most common environmental risk that is perceived for the society although less to themselves and their families. Environmental risk perception researches should conduct in health and environmental professionals as a target group.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environment,risk perception,health,health workers

SAĞLIK VE ÇEVRE PROFESYONELLERİNDE ÇEVRESEL RİSK ALGISI: ESKİ BİR ÇALIŞMADAN GÜNCELE DAİR İPUÇLARI

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı Kocaeli’de Sağlık ve Çevre Müdürlüklerinde çalışan meslek gruplarının topluma ve kendileriyle ailelerine yönelik risk algılarının belirlenmesidir. Tanımlayıcı olan bu çalışmaya 132 kişi katılmış ve veriler sosyodemografik özelliklerin ve bazı çevresel risklere ilişkin algı düzeyinin değerlendirildiği bir anket formu aracılığıyla yüz yüze görüşme yöntemiyle toplanmıştır. Katılımcıların %41.6’sı hekim, %39.4’ü çevre sağlığı teknisyeni, %19.0’u da diğer mesleklerdendir mühendis, teknisyen vb . Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 30.7 ± 7.4 yıldır ve %25’i kadındır. Kendilerine ve ailelerine yönelik olarak daha az düzeyde olmak üzere topluma yönelik çevresel riskler arasında endüstri kaynaklı risklerin yüksek düzeyde algılandığı belirlenmiştir. Sağlık ve çevre meslek grupları çevresel risk algısı çalışmalarında hedef grup olarak alınmalı ve bu alandaki araştırmalar geliştirilmelidir.Anahtar sözcükler: Çevre, risk algısı, sağlık, sağlık çalışanları.AbstractThe objective of this study is to determine the perception of environmental health risks directed to themselves, their families, and the society among professionals in Directorate of Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment in Kocaeli. In this descriptive study, data was collected through face to face interviews from 132 individuals physician, technician, engineer etc. who have been working in health care services and environment agency. Of all 41.6% of the participants were physicians, 39.4% were environment technicians and 19.0% were other engineer, technicians etc. professionals. A questionnaire was used including socio-demographic variables and perceptions of some environmental risks. Mean age of participants was 30.7 ± 7.4 year, and 25% of them was female. Industrial pollution risks were most common environmental risk that is perceived for the society although less to themselves and their families. Environmental risk perception researches should conduct in health and environmental professionals as a target group.Key word: Environment, risk perception, health, health workers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevre,risk algısı,sağlık,sağlık çalışanları

Kaynakça

1. Hohenemser C, Kates RW, Slovic P. The nature of technological hazard. Science. 1983;20:378-84
2. Yolsal N. Örkün M. Çevre ve Sağlıkla bağlantılı risklerin analizi: Risk belirleme, risk değerlendirme ve risk algılama. Toplum ve Hekim. 1998; 13, (1): 31-4.
3. Wakefield S. Elliot S.J. Environmental risk perception and well being: effects of the landfill sitting process in two southern Ontario communities. Social Science and Medicine. 2000;50: 1139-54.
4. Doğan F. Uygulamalı Çevre Bilimi ve Çevre Epidemiyolojisi. Ege Ü. Basımevi. İzmir. 1998:3-44.
5. Güler Ç, Çobanoğlu Z. Risk İletişimi ve Risk Yönetimi. Çevre Sağlığı Temel Kaynak Dizisi. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık Projesi Genel Koordinatörlüğü. Ankara; 1997:21-59.
6. Hamzaoğlu O, Uçar M, Ceylan S, Özkan Ö. Biçer T. Bir tıp fakültesi hastanesinde görevli hemşirelerin HBV infeksiyonu ile ilgili risk algılamaları ile ilgili bilgi tutum davranışlarının saptanması. V. Ulusal Halk Sağlığı kongresi bildiri kitabı. İstanbul: Marmara Ü.T.F. 1996;571-78.
7. Berkes F, Kışlalıoğlu M. Ekoloji ve Çevre Bilimleri. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, Ocak 1994:13-48.
8. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280-5.

9. Charnley G, Graham JD, Kennedy RFJ, Shogren. 1998 Annual meeting plenary session: assessing and managing risk in democratic society. Risk Analysis. 2000;20(3):301-6.
10. Osei E.K, Amoh G.E.A., Schandorf C. Risk ranking by perception. Health Physics. February 1997;72(2):195- 203.
11. Güler Ç, Benli D, Çevre Sağlığı. İçinde: Bertan M., Güler Ç. Ed.: Halk Sağlığı Temel Bilgiler. Ankara: Güneş Kitabevi 1995:225-62.
12. Akdur R, Aygün R, Aycan S, Evci D, Ekmekçigil A. Ulusal Çevre Programı. Ankara: T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Temel Sağlık Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Ocak 2001:10-1.
13. Petcovic W.L. Managing differences in individual risk perceptions: A pilot experiment to integrate individual perceptions. In: Advances in risk analysis. Ed: Garrick BJ, Gekler WC. Plenum Press. New York and London, 1987 (4):117-21.
14. Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Quadrel MJ. Risk perception and communication. In: Detels R, Holland WW, McEven J, Omenn GS. Oxford Textbook of Public Health. 1997;2;987-1002.
15. Hoefer MP, Raju VS. Technological risk perception: similarities and dissimilarities in French and American samples. In: Advances in risk analysis. The analysis, communications and perception of risk. Ed: Garrick BJ, Gekler WC. Plenum Press. New York and London, 1987 (9): 25-30.
16. İzmit Kent Kurultayı. Kocaeli Deprem Sonrası Demografik Ekonomik ve Sosyal Durumu. Ed: Sevim Y. Araştırma dizisi. İzmit 2000.
17. Mileti DS, Farhar BC, Fitzpatrick C, Helmericks SG. Public perception and response to the Parkfield California Earthquake prediction. Advances in risk analysis. The analysis, communications and perception of risk. Ed: Garrick B.J., Gekler W.C. Plenum Press. New York and London, 1987 (9): 321-34.
18. Starr G, Langley A, Taylor A. Environmental risk perception in Australia. A research report to the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. Centre for population studies in epidemiology, South Australian Department of Human Services. 2000. www.health.gov.au. (erişim tarihi: 12.02.2001).
19. Byrd TL, Van Derslice J. Perception of environmental risks in three el paso communities. WERK conference proceedings, albuquerque, New Mexico, May, 1996.
20. Elliot SJ, Cole DC, Krueger P, Voorberg N, Wakefield S. The power of perception: health risk attributed to air pollution in an urban industrial neighborhood. Risk Analysis.1999;19(4):621-34.
21. Marris C, Langford I, Saunderson T, O’Riordan T. Exploring the “psychometric paradigm”: comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Analysis. June 1997;17(3):303-12.l