Assessment of quality of life in the descendants of people exposed to radiation in Kazakhstan

European Journal of Public Health, 2018

Закрытый доступ Метаданные (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1093/eurpub/cky214.075
Достоверность данных 70 средняя
Как считается эта оценка

Складывается из проверяемых признаков самой записи: есть ли у статьи DOI, сколько независимых источников подтвердили её данные, заполнены ли обязательные поля и насколько свежо последнее подтверждение. Снижают оценку расхождения между источниками и отсутствие идентификатора. Значение от 80 означает, что запись опубликована без дополнительной проверки; от 60 до 79 — что она опубликована с пониженной достоверностью и ручная проверка желательна. Запись, выверенную редактором вручную, пересчёт не опускает ниже 90. Это оценка наших данных о статье, а не оценка самой статьи.

Аннотация

Background: The assessment of environmental factors influence on the population quality of life is one of the generally accepted methods of health status evaluation. Inadequate informing of the population considering the consequences of radiation exposure leads to the development of anxiety and affects the assessment of the quality of life. Methods: The quality of life was evaluated in the population exposed to radiation on the territories of Abay (n = 233), Borodulikha (n = 222) districts, and control Kurchum district (n = 245) of East Kazakhstan region. Information was confirmed by the database of State Medical Register of the Kazakhstani population exposure to radiation. The tool for assessing the quality of life was SF-36 questionnaire. 76.9% examined people were exposed in childhood, 23.9% were born from irradiated parents. Average individual dose for the population of Abai district was 7.53 cSv, Borodulikha district – 2.8 cSv; dose of their parents – 96.75 and 26.73 cSv respectively. Results: The analysis of the results revealed the statistically significant decrease of all rates of quality of life in the population of Abay district in comparison with control group. The lowest rates of quality of life were recorded on the 'general health' scales (56.55, 62.08 and 64.36, respectively in the studied groups) and 'viability” (59.89, 63.89 and 62.26 respectively). The highest rates were found on the scale 'physical functioning' (82.85, 88.85 and 89.37 respectively). Conclusions: The results indicate a statistically significant decrease in the quality of life in the residents living in the radiation-contaminated territories with the maximum radiation doses. Key messages: The psychological support services have to be provided to the local population. There is a need to study other risk factors influencing the residents’ opinion about the quality of their lives.