Treatment Delays, Inappropriate First Intervention, Personal Protective Equipment Use, and Related Factors in Corneal Foreign Body Injuries as Occupational Accidents

  1. Funda Yüksekyayla
  2. İbrahim Koruk
  3. Ali Hakim Reyhan
  4. Çağrı Mutaf
  5. İrfan Uzun
  6. Esma Büşra Bayramoğlu
  7. Nurullah Demir

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Eye injuries caused by foreign bodies are common occupational accidents among workers in construction and metal working. Although such accidents can be prevented by using personal protective equipment (PPE) such as goggles/eye shields, their use is not at the desired level due to various reasons such as inaccessibility and behavioural factors. The aim of this study was to determine treatment delays, inappropriate first intervention, PPE use, and factors affecting these in corneal foreign body (CFB) injuries classified as occupational accidents. The present study is a cross-sectional study. A total of 92 patients who referred to the Ophthalmology Clinic of xxx Faculty of Medicine Hospital constituted the sample of the study. The research data was collected by using a structured survey consisting of 20 questions. All participants were male. Mean age was 36.04±12.24, and the mean length of service at the current workplace was 11.86±10.98 years. The most common occupation among participants was welding/metalworking, with a rate of 38.0%. It was found that 87.0% of foreign bodies causing injury were metal. It was found that 75.0% of participants experienced treatment delays, 9.8% performed incorrect first intervention, and 46% did not consistently use PPE. It was also found that those who performed first interventions correctly were mostly young people, and that PPE use was higher among those receiving occupational health and safety services (p< 0.05). The present study shows that the use of PPE is still an important method for preventing occupational eye injuries. Qualified occupational health and safety services and the use of PPE should be monitored, and training should be provided to equip workers with the skills to respond appropriately to eye injuries.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17284358.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Highly appropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Moderately likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, as it is

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  2. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17288107.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Highly appropriate The statistical tests were listed out
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Moderately likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, as it is

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

    The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.

  3. Version published to 10.20944/preprints202509.0676.v1