Does risk recognition affect workers’ hearing protection utilisation rate? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Frontiers in Public Health, 2023
Introduction: The use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) has been an intervention of choice in many workplaces such as in the construction industry for quite some time due to impractical e ects of engineering and administrative interventions. Questionnaires for assessment for HPDs use among construction workers have been developed and validated in developed countries. However, there is limited knowledge of the same, among manufacturing workers in developing countries that are assumed to have a di erent culture, work organizations and production processes. Methods: We conducted a stepwise methodological study to develop a questionnaire to predict the use of HPDs among noise exposed workers in manufacturing factories in Tanzania. The questionnaire included items and was developed through rigorous and systematic procedures involving three steps; (i) item formulation that involved two experts, (ii) expert content review and item rating that involving eight experts with vast experience in the field, and (iii) a field pre-test that involved randomly selected workers from a factory with similar characteristics as a planned study site. A modified Pender's Health Promotion Model was adopted in the questionnaire development. We analyzed the questionnaire in terms of content validity and item reliability. Results: The items were categorized into seven domains i.e., perceived selfe cacy, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, interpersonal influences, situational influences and safety climate. The score for content validity for each item was satisfactory as the content validity index ranged between. to. for clarity, relevance, and essentiality criteria. Similarly, the scores for the content validity ratio (for all items) were. ,. and. for clarity, relevance, and essentiality, respectively. In addition, the overall value for Cronbach's alpha was. with domain coe cients: perceived self-e cacy. ; perceived susceptibility. ; perceived benefits. ; perceived barriers. ; interpersonal influences. ; situational influences;. ; and safety climate. . The mean inter-item correlation was. suggesting good internal consistency. Discussion and conclusion: The developed and preliminary validated questionnaire can be used to predict the HPDs use among noise exposed manufacturing factory workers. Future surveys using this questionnaires warranted for further validation of the scale developed.
Factors influencing the use of hearing protection devices in Irish mine workers
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Safety
Background: Workers who are exposed to high levels of noise should consider wearing HPDs when elimination of noise cannot be put in place. There are several factors including health and safety management systems, peers and policy that could influence workers to either use or not use HPDs. Objectives: To determine worker’s perception of noise risk in a mining setting and to determine if there is an association between organisational rules, knowledge, and the wearing of Hearing Protection Devices (HPDs). Methods: A cross- sectional study was conducted at a mining setting in Ireland in which 116 workers participated; a self-administered questionnaire survey was used. Data analysis was carried out using descriptive statistics and binary regression analysis. Results: The study had a response rate of 94% of the entire population. The mean exposure to noise levels that require HPDs is 5.32 hours. The results showed an association between using HPDs and organisation rules; and no associatio...
Indicators of Hearing Protection Use: Self-Report and Researcher Observation
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2009
Hearing protection devices (HPD) are commonly used to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss. There is a large body of research on hearing protection use in industry, and much of it relies on workers' self-reported use of hearing protection. Based on previous studies in fixed industry, worker self-report has been accepted as an adequate and reliable tool to measure this behavior among workers in many industrial sectors. However, recent research indicates selfreported hearing protection use may not accurately reflect subject behavior in industries with variable noise exposure. This study compares workers' self-reported use of hearing protection with their observed use in three workplaces with two types of noise environments: one construction site and one fixed industry facility with a variable noise environment, and one fixed industry facility with a steady noise environment. Subjects reported their use of hearing protection on self-administered surveys and activity cards, which were validated using researcher observations. The primary outcome of interest in the study was the difference between the selfreported use of hearing protection in high noise on the activity card and survey: (1) over one workday, and (2) over a 2-week period. The primary hypotheses for the study were that subjects in workplaces with variable noise environments would report their use of HPDs less accurately than subjects in the stable noise environment, and that reporting would be less accurate over 2 weeks than over 1 day. In addition to noise variability, other personal and workplace factors thought to affect the accuracy of self-reported hearing protection use were also analyzed. This study found good agreement between subjects' self-reported HPD use and researcher observations. Workers in the steady noise environment self-reported hearing protection use more accurately on the surveys than workers in variable noise environments. The findings demonstrate the potential importance of noise exposure variability as a factor influencing reporting accuracy.
Predictors of Hearing Protection Use in Construction Workers
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2009
Objectives: Although noise-induced hearing loss is completely preventable, it remains highly prevalent among construction workers. Hearing protection devices (HPDs) are commonly relied upon for exposure reduction in construction, but their use is complicated by intermittent and highly variable noise, inadequate industry support for hearing conservation, and lax regulatory enforcement. Methods: As part of an intervention study designed to promote HPD use in the construction industry, we enrolled a cohort of 268 construction workers from a variety of trades at eight sites and evaluated their use of HPDs at baseline. We measured HPD use with two instruments, a questionnaire survey and a validated combination of activity logs with simultaneous dosimetry measurements. With these measurements, we evaluated potential predictors of HPD use based on components of Pender's revised health promotion model (HPM) and safety climate factors. Results: Observed full-shift equivalent noise levels were above recommended limits, with a mean of 89.8 6 4.9 dBA, and workers spent an average of 32.4 6 18.6% of time in each shift above 85 dBA. We observed a bimodal distribution of HPD use from the activity card/dosimetry measures, with nearly 80% of workers reporting either almost never or almost always using HPDs. Fair agreement (kappa 5 0.38) was found between the survey and activity card/dosimetry HPD use measures. Logistic regression models identified site, trade, education level, years in construction, percent of shift in high noise, and five HPM components as important predictors of HPD use at the individual level. Site safety climate factors were also predictors at the group level. Conclusions: Full-shift equivalent noise levels on the construction sites assessed were well above the level at which HPDs are required, but usage rates were quite low. Understanding and predicting HPD use differs by methods used to assess use (survey versus activity card/dosimetry). Site, trade, and the belief that wearing HPD is not time consuming were the only predictors of HPD use common to both measures on an individual level. At the group level, perceived support for site safety and HPD use proved to be predictive of HPD use.
Worker questionnaire for affordable occupational noise exposure evaluations
2016
Compliance with European laws on noise in the workplace implies costly efforts to measure and map out noise in industrial facilities. This is a potential roadblock for small and medium-sized enterprises. Using the competence of workers in recognizing the quality of their environment is suggested here as an efficient and cheap alternative. For demonstration purposes, we present the data from a noise measurement campaign in a Belgian food processing factory in parallel with the answers to a simple questionnaire submitted to the line operators. The individual daily noise exposure levels were estimated for every job in the factory, using over 200 noise readings that were taken throughout the facility. Some of the exposure levels were found to be near or above the legal threshold that triggers proactive hearing protection policies. In the questionnaire, workers had to estimate the quality of communication at 50 cm and at 5 m in the vicinity of various operating equipment. A four-level rating scale was used (normal voice, raised voice, shouting and impossible communication) and empirically linked to sound pressure levels. The levels estimated by the workers show a remarkable agreement with the measurements. Dangerous exposure levels are correctly identified. Still, Hearing Protection Devices (HPD) use is limited to individuals who are sensitive to noise (21% of the surveyed pool). As the questionnaire was filled in during individual consultations, workers experiencing noise-induced headaches could be convinced to wear HPD. This is a non-negligible secondary benefit of our approach.
Evaluation of the Dangerous Decibels Brazil Program in Workers Exposed to Noise
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
IntroductionNoise-induced hearing loss can be avoided by taking preventive measures.ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of the Brazilian version of the Dangerous Decibels® program for noise-exposed workers, using the ecological model as an educational intervention plan.MethodNon-randomized interventional study with a quantitative, experimental trial design, conducted at a meatpacking company. The participants were divided into two groups—the first one (n = 132, divided into 6 subgroups) received the Dangerous Decibels® Brazil educational intervention (DDBEI) adapted to workers while the second group (n = 138, divided into 5 subgroups) received a conventional educational intervention (CEI). The interventions lasted 50 min. The Hearing Protection Assessment Questionnaire (HPA-5) was administered before and after the interventions. The five dimensions (attitude, behavior, knowledge, supports, and barriers) were compared using the Student’s t-test for paired data (<0.05).ResultsAfte...
Jornal da Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia, 2011
To verify the effectiveness of an educational action in the form of training, emphasizing the importance of hearing protection for workers exposed to occupational noise. The study included 78 male individuals. All participants answered a questionnaire before they were submitted to audiological evaluation. For the second application of the questionnaire, participants were randomly divided into two groups: Research Group, constituted by 44 subjects that received educational training before the second questionnaire application, and Control Group, comprising 34 individuals that answered the questionnaire before the educational training. Training was based on material with graphic images and text, in the form of conversation. The topics covered included: the importance of hearing, noise effects on health, importance of preventing hearing loss and using hearing protection, conservation and cleaning of hearing protectors, levels of noise in the workplace and noise attenuation provided by h...
Effectiveness of a Tailored Intervention to Increase Factory Workers??? Use of Hearing Protection
Nursing Research, 2003
Background: In the United States it is estimated that more than 30 million workers are exposed to harmful levels of noise on the job. When engineering or administrative controls cannot be used to reduce noise, workers should always use hearing protection devices (HPDs) when exposed to loud noise to prevent noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Previous research has shown that workers do not always use HPDs when required; therefore, it is essential that workers assume personal responsibility for preventing NIHL by increasing their use of HPDs. Objectives: This study tested the effectiveness of an individually tailored multimedia intervention to increase use of HPDs by factory workers. Methods: A randomized controlled design was used to compare the effects of a tailored intervention (n = 446) with two other interventions (a nontailored predictor-based intervention (n = 447) and a control intervention (n = 432)) on workers' self-reported use of HPDs 6 to 18 months following the intervention. Results: Only those workers receiving the tailored intervention significantly increased their use of HPDs from pretest to posttest. However, this increase significantly differed from the nontailored group but not from the control group. Conclusions: Individually-tailored interventions offer promise for changing behavior. In light of the similarity between the results for the tailored intervention and the control intervention groups, further research is needed to understand barriers to HPD use and how to maximize the benefits of individually tailored interventions in this setting.