Condition 1: Exposure to chemical hazards. Condition 2: Safety climate.
Conditions
Interventions
Intervention 1: Intervention group:The study includes 46 eligible operating room (OR) personnel from one of the Namazi or Faghihi hospitals. The intervention and control hospitals will be determined b
Sponsors
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Holding at least an associate’s or bachelor’s degree in Operating Room Technology, Anesthesia, or Nursing Working in the role of scrub, circulator, or anesthesia personnel Serving as manager or supervisor in various sections of the operating room Having direct contact with chemical substances in the operating room as scrub, circulator, or anesthesia personnel Having access to the Internet Owning a smartphone or tablet and being able to use them Having the willingness to participate in the study
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other personnel including service staff, facilities staff, sterile section staff, and administrative staff. History of participation in similar studies. Inability to follow study protocols.? Lack of informed consent.? Unwillingness to participate in the study or lack of motivation to participate.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Exposure to Chemical Hazards. Timepoint: Before the intervention begins, immediately after the intervention, and two months after the intervention. Method of measurement: To measure exposure to chemical hazards, the Chemical Hazard Exposure Questionnaire for Operating Room Personnel developed by Bagheri et al. (2023) is used. This questionnaire was designed and psychometrically validated by Bagheri and colleagues in 2023. It includes 13 questions regarding exposure to chemical hazards. Responses in this questionnaire are in a yes/no format, with "yes" scored as 2 and "no" scored as 1. Items 3, 6, 11, and 12 are positively worded, while the remaining items are negatively worded, and they are scored accordingly. The maximum achievable score on this instrument is 26, and the minimum is 13. Scores are categorized as follows: the lowest third (low) 13–17, the middle third (moderate) 18–22, and the highest third (high) 23–26.The psychometric properties of this tool were evaluated in terms of validity and reliability. Validity assessment included face validity, content validity, and construct validity. The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) for all questionnaire items was above 49%, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) exceeded 79%. The Scale-level CVI/Average (S-CVI/Ave) was assessed at 98%. To determine reliability, internal consistency was evaluated using the split-half method and Cronbach's alpha, while instrument stability was assessed through a test–retest method. Internal consistency of the chemical hazard assessment tool was confirmed with a Kuder–Richardson coefficient of 0.7 and a split-half correlation of 0.78. Instrument stability via the test–retest method was confirmed with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.96 and 0.88, respectively. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Safety climate. Timepoint: Before the intervention begins, immediately after the intervention, and two months after the intervention. Method of measurement: To assess the safety climate, the Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire 2011 (50-NOSACQ) is used. The validity and reliability of this questionnaire were established by experts from Nordic countries. The Nordic questionnaire is a reliable tool for measuring the safety climate in workplaces and can be used in different countries. This questionnaire contains 50 items designed to capture individuals’ attitudes and perceptions regarding the safety climate in their work environment. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with the statements using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree," with "strongly disagree" scored as 1 and "strongly agree" scored as 4. Some items are scored positively, while others are reverse-scored.The NOSACQ-50 includes 50 questions across seven dimensions, assessing shared perceptions in the following areas:Management’s priority, commitment, and competence in safety (9 items)Safety empowerment by management (7 items)Management safety justice (6 items)Employees’ commitment to safety (6 items)Employees’ safety priority and risk non-acceptance (7 items)Safety communication, learning, and trust in colleagues’ safety competence (8 items)Employees’ trust in the effectiveness of safety systems (7 items)Accordingly, the minimum and maximum safety climate scores per individual are as follows: Dimension 1: 9–36; Dimension 2: 7–28; Dimensions 3 and 4: 6–24; Dimension 5: 7–28; Dimension 6: 8–32; Dimension 7: 7–28. Higher scores indicate a better safety climate, while lower scores indicate a poorer one.In Iran, the Nordic questionnaire was translated into Persian by Yousefi et al. They ensured linguistic validity through forward and backward translation and confirmation by the original questionnaire designer. Content validity was also confirmed by safety experts. T | — |
Countries
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Contacts
Public Contact????
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Outcome results
None listed