23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tracking evaluation of “General Provisions of Safety and Health for Writing Boards”

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To evaluated the application of General Provisions of Safety and Health for Writing Boards (GB 282312011), and to provide basis for the revision and improvement of the standard.

          Methods From June to October 2018, a questionnaire survey was conducted among 852 people engaged in the evaluation, use and production of writing boards in 8 districts of Beijing, Liaoning and Jiangsu. The contents of the survey include the awareness, implementation of the standard and evaluating the use of various parameters in the standard by personnel from different institutions.

          Results The overall awareness ratio of the standard among staffs from health, education and enter prise was 78.26%. For the nominal size of the writing board and the vertical distance between the lower edge and the platform, the reasonableness considered lower by health professionals (62.50%, 37.50%) than that of education professionals (90.00%, 90.00%) and enterprise staffs (90.00%, 90.00%) ( P<0.05); For the frequency and reasonableness of the nine parameters such as gloss and adhesion, the perception of each institution were significantly different ( P<0.05) , with proportion of professionals in health lower than experts in education and enterprise. For the two parameters of color and light resistance, each institution considered the maneuverability was not strong ( P>0.05).

          Conclusion Propagation and implement is still needed to strengthen comprehension, because different institutions have different understandings towards the standard. There are still some problems waiting to be solved, such as different standard limits, poor enforceability of two parameters which are writing board color and light resistance.

          Abstract

          【摘要】 目的 评估《书写板安全卫生要求》 (GB 28231—2011)应用情况, 为标准的修订提供依据。 方法 2018年 6—10 月对北京、辽宁、江苏的 8 个区从事书写板评价、生产、使用的卫生、企业、教育机构人员及师生共计 852 人开展问卷调査, 内容包含不同机构人员对标准的知晓、贯彻及对标准各项参数使用效果的评价, 师生对使用书写板的主观感受。 结果 卫 生、教育和企业人员对标准的整体知晓率为 78.26%。对于书写板标称尺寸和下沿与讲台面垂直距离, 卫生机构认为其合 理性 (62.50%, 37.50%) 低于教育 (90.00%, 90.00%) 和企业 (90.00%, 90.00%) ( P 值均<0.05) ;对于光泽度、附着性等参数 使用的频率和合理性, 各机构认知差异均有统计学意义 ( P 值均<0.05), 卫生机构低于教育和企业。对于颜色、耐光性, 各 机构均认为可操作性不强 ( P 值均>0.05)。 结论 不同部门对该标准的理解不一, 仍需加强宣贯。还存在标准限值不一, 书写板颜色、耐光性2项参数可操作性不强等问题, 有待修订。

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          CJSH
          Chinese Journal of School Health
          Chinese Journal of School Health (China )
          1000-9817
          01 November 2020
          01 November 2020
          : 41
          : 11
          : 1719-1722
          Affiliations
          [1] 1Institute of School Health, Beijing Centers for Disease Prevention and Control/Beijing Centers for Disease Preventive Medical Research, Beijing (100013), China
          Author notes
          *Corresponding author: GUO Xin, E-mail: gguoxin2000@ 123456126.com
          Article
          j.cnki.1000-9817.2020.11.032
          10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2020.11.032
          59b95588-4ce2-4554-b4eb-07796cea5176
          © 2020 Chinese Journal of School Health

          This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

          Product
          Self URI (journal-page): http://www.cjsh.org.cn
          Categories
          Journal Article

          Ophthalmology & Optometry,Pediatrics,Nutrition & Dietetics,Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry,Public health
          Students,Health,Reference standards,Health personnel

          Comments

          Comment on this article