Objective This study was designed to reveal the relationship between the use and type of eye protection and the occurrence of work-related corneal and conjunctival foreign body injuries.
Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with work-related corneal and/or conjunctival foreign body injuries between 1 August 2017 and 31 July 2018. They were all diagnosed and treated at Jia Ding Hospital affiliated to the Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences in Shanghai, China. All patients received a comprehensive eye examination and a face-to-face interview using a structured questionnaire by ophthalmologists.
Results A total of 426 consecutive patients were included in the study. The majority of work-related eye injuries occurred in men (94.17%). Summer was the season that had the highest incidence of eye injuries, especially in July and August (38.03%). There were 290 patients (68.08%) that were injured more than once. The ratio of eye protection use to non-protection was 1:7 at the first time of eye injury. The ratio improved to 1:3 on subsequent injury. A majority of employers (79.11%) provided eye protection to employees. However, 19.95% of the workers were injured despite wearing a pair of protective spectacles. The causes of work-related eye injury were as follows: no eye protections provided (20.89%); unawareness of work safety (30.99%); defect of spectacles (47.18%).
Conclusions Protection use at work effectively prevents work-related eye injuries. Both employers and employees require improved awareness of workplace hazards and personal protection. Eye protection should be selected appropriately according to the work environment.
- ocular injury
- occupational injury
- risk factor research
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request. All free text entered below will be published.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors FS designed the study, conducted the coding and analyses, and drafted the manuscript. YZ revised manuscript and made substantial contribution to the data presentation. FS, DL and HQ collected clinical cases, conducted questionnaires and eye examinations on the patients. All authors participated in the critical revision of the manuscript and gave the final approval.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.