Usefulness of the protection motivation theory in explaining hearing protection device use among male industrial workers.

Melamed, Samuel; Rabinowitz, Stanley; Feiner, Mabel; Weisberg, Esther; Ribak, Joseph

doi:10.1037/0278-6133.15.3.209

Cited by 117 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings support the importance of self-efficacy in positively changing health and safety behaviors [Kelly et al, 1991;Melamed et al, 1996;Wulfert and Wan, 1993].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Impact of managers' personal determinants in notifying workplace hazards

et al. 1998

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Notification about work hazards is a legal requirement in advanced industrial countries, but workers have claimed, that in many cases, they do not receive enough information regarding risks, exposure, and medical problems. The recent professional literature on the subject has explored the ways in which notification is delivered without suffıciently considering the psychological incentives and barriers that may affect managers in transmitting risk information. The present study aimed at examining managers' personal determinants and notification of work hazards in a sample of 106 managers and 460 workers in 40 departments of three industrial plants in Israel. Results of our study showed that both managers and workers perceived the importance of the delivery of safety information as quite high (means of 3.43 and 3.7, respectively, out of 5), with managers reporting that they rely primarily on personal modes of communication. Immediate supervisors were regarded by both groups as the most important persons in notification. Managers having past experience in treating injured workers notified more, primarily using personal notification. The most important personal determinants that positively predicted managers' notification were their sense of self-effıcacy and positive expectation of notification. Outcome denial and coping by distancing were negatively correlated with notifying about these risks.

show abstract

“…These findings support the importance of self-efficacy in positively changing health and safety behaviors [Kelly et al, 1991;Melamed et al, 1996;Wulfert and Wan, 1993].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Impact of managers' personal determinants in notifying workplace hazards

et al. 1998

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Briefly, we adopted a modified version of the HPM (Pender et al, 1990;Pender, 1996) and designed the training program around the original HPM elements of self-efficacy, benefits to prevention, barriers to prevention, interpersonal and situational influences, as well as elements addressing perceived susceptibility and perceived severity (Melamed et al, 1996). In addition, the program addressed specific knowledge about hearing loss prevention Seixas et al Page 4 Int J Audiol.…”

Section: Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the HPM has been effectively used to explain and motivate use of HPDs in past studies (Lusk et al, 1994(Lusk et al, , 1999a(Lusk et al, , 1997Ronis et al, 2006), this model does not include risk perceptions around hearing loss due to noise exposure. Melamed and colleagues demonstrated that constructs from other value-expectancy models such as the health belief model also significantly predict HPD use (Melamed et al, 1996). In particular the perceived threats of noise exposure (i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-component intervention to promote hearing protector use among construction workers

Seixas

Neitzel

Stover

et al. 2010

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing protection devices (HPD) remain a primary method of prevention of noise-induced hearing loss despite their well-known limitations. A three-pronged intervention to increase HPD use was conducted among construction workers and included a baseline hearing loss prevention training, follow-up 'toolbox' (TB) reinforcement trainings, and use of a personal noise level indicator (NLI). A total of 176 subjects on eight sites completed three assessments. Prior to intervention, HPDs were used an average of 34.5% of the time and increased significantly, up about 12.1% after intervention and 7.5% two months after interventions were completed. The increase in HPD use was greatest among the group receiving both TB and NLI interventions; up about 25% from baseline, and this group was about two times more likely to use HPDs than the BL (baseline) training only group. This study demonstrates the mild impact of a well-constructed HPD use training and provides support for the additional use of a personal NLI to increase use of HPDs among construction workers. The most effective procedures for using such instruments require further exploration. KeywordsHearing protectors; Construction; Hearing conservation training; Noise exposure; Hearing loss prevention; Intervention research Despite wide recognition of the high levels of noise exposure in the construction industry (Sinclair & Haflidson, 1995;Legris & Poulin, 1998;Suter, 2002), the high prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss among long-term construction workers (Daniell et al, 2002;Hong, 2005), and the potential effectiveness of hearing protection devices (HPDs) (Berger et al, 1996;Toivonen et al, 2002), especially when used as part of a comprehensive hearing loss prevention program (HLPP) (Brink et al, 2002;Davies et al, 2008;Rabinowitz et al, 2007), use of HPDs among construction workers remains frustratingly low. Previous work Correspondence: Noah Seixas, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, 4225 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. nseixas@u.washington.edu. Declaration of interest:The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscript Int J Audiol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 14. Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript by our group has observed usage rates less than 25% of the time while workers were exposed to noise levels greater than 85 dBA, the nominal 'high noise' level at which risk of hearing loss increases steeply. Further, when the attenuation achieved by typical foam insert ear plugs is factored in with the time of use and exposure levels at those times, the average reduction in exposure is less than 3 dBA over a full work shift. While both noise exposure level and HPD use appear to vary substantially by trade, all trades observed have a substantial fraction of their full shift exposures above 85 dBA, even after adjusting for HPD us...

show abstract

“…Some authors point out barriers about comfort to the use of the protectors (Melamed et al, 1996;Davis et al, 2009;Byrne, 2011). Others research point the relationship between hearing protection use and risk perception in the work environment (Rabinowitz et al, 2007) and indicate that the most effective use of hearing protection in the workplace is more related in places where noise exposure is higher.…”

Section: Hearing Proctetors Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Noise perception and hearing protector use in metallurgical industries

Wictor¹,

Xavier²

2018

IJOOES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although hearing protectors are defined as a temporary solution, they are often widely employed as the only measure against noise exposure. However, it is also known that unless workers wear the hearing protector continuously, their effectiveness will be very low. In this regard, there are some surveys that show that workers do not always wear their protectors properly and consistently while exposed to noise. The purpose of this article is to present the results of an investigation about noise perception, relating with noise exposure in working environment and the hearing protectors' use. Was consider that noise perceptions effects can support minimizing risk and improve industries safety polities. The study sample was carry out in 5 metallurgical industries and 243 workers from Parana -Brazil. The survey data was collected and analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The questionnaire results showed that workers are exposed at high noise levels, in increasing risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). About the hearing protection use, it can be evaluated that the use is more effective in companies with a higher level of noise exposure. The perception of risk plays a fundamental role, which predicts the use of hearing protectors; therefore, the perception of the work environment, regarding the lower or higher risk, can be directly linked to the use of hearing protectors. The companies with more rigorous safety procedures also indicate a greater report of effective use of hearing protectors.

show abstract

Usefulness of the protection motivation theory in explaining hearing protection device use among male industrial workers.

Cited by 117 publications

References 35 publications

Impact of managers' personal determinants in notifying workplace hazards

Impact of managers' personal determinants in notifying workplace hazards

A multi-component intervention to promote hearing protector use among construction workers

Noise perception and hearing protector use in metallurgical industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About