This study aimed to examine factors affecting radiation protective behaviors among emergency room nurses by assessing knowledge, attitude, and environment for radiation protection. Methods : The study employed a cross-sectional design. Subjects were a convenience sample of 129 nurses working in emergency rooms of three general hospitals. Data were collected using self-report questionnaires and analyzed using t-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficients, and multiple regression. Results : The more the nurses received radiation safety education (t=2.26, p=.026), used protective gear (t=4.40, p<.001), and took health screenings (t=2.65, p=.009), the higher their levels of radiation protection behavior. There were significant relations between radiation protective behaviors and attitude (r=.27, p=.002), and radiation protective behaviors and environment for radiation protection (r=.55, p<.001). The factors affecting radiation protective behaviors were protective environment (β=.53, p<.001), protective attitude (β=.32, p<.001), and the use of protective gear (β=.24, p=.002). Conclusions : The government, hospital administrators, and radiation protection-related organization should adopt the following measures to protect emergency room nurses from radiation: research and development of shield instrument, medical examination for emergency room nurses, protocol development of radiation protection behaviors, extension of education chances of radiation protection, and encouraging the use of protective equipment.

No abstract

This study examines learning outcomes by applying design thinking to logic and writing in the area of education, educational philosophy and in history classes. It also provides basic data on whether to expand the application to other classes. The results of the study are as follows: First, in creative thinking competency, the average score of the students was higher than before in all divergent thinking abilities, adventure and curiosity, intellectual inquiry, but not for original flexibility. The difference between the means was statistically significant (p < .05). Second, in emotional intelligence improvement, the average was higher than before in all forms of emotion recognition and expression, empathy, thinking promotion, and emotion utilization. Only with emotional regulation did the average score not increase. The difference between the means was statistically significant (p < .05). Third, design thinking was effective in five categories of learning outcomes. From this study, we found that using design thinking is meaningful in improving the ability of students to solve problems related to creative thinking and emotional intelligence.

No abstract