Kerr et al., (2007). N=343 Participants randomly assigned to 1 of 4 intervention groups: (1) tailored; (2) tailored + booster; (3) targeted; (4) targeted + booster. The intervention (all groups): interactive multi-media game-format educational program: participants had to foil a noise villain by using hearing protection. Targeted version: generic messages incorporating components of the PUHP model; Tailored version: individualised messages based on worker responses to survey Qs assessing components of the model. Six months later, participants in the booster conditions received an informational handout reminding them of the game theme. Baseline, 6 months: booster (if in selected group); 12 month follow up Self-reported % of time workers used hearing protection when exposed to loud noise in their most recent job, job before that and in the preceding 12 months. There was a significant time effect with HPD use rising from 42% to 50% (tailored improved by 8.3%, targeted improved by 6.1%). There was no difference in the degree of improvement between the tailored and targeted groups and no significant effects of the booster on HPD use. 58% of the variance in HPD use was explained by past behaviour, use of social models of HPD use and benefits and barriers (support for the model). Kines et al., (2010). Total N not reported; N=5-17 workers on any given day from 5 construction work gangs. The intervention involved worksite foremen receiving 8 bi-weekly coaching sessions by members of the research team to include safety issues in their daily verbal exchanges with workers. Following weekly interviews with workers, foremen were given bi-weekly feedback regarding the verbal exchanges. The intervention period lasted 16 weeks. Data collection at baseline, and follow-up (between 8 and 16 weeks). Frequency of communication; safety performance as observed by research team walk-rounds. In intervention group 1, there was an increase in foremen-worker safety exchanges from 6% at baseline to 62% post intervention and 46% at follow-up (p < .001). No increases were seen in intervention group 2. There was a significant increase in safety performance for the two intervention groups combined. No significant changes were seen amongst the control groups in communication or performance. site
Lingard & Rowlinson (1997). Total N not reported; participants were workers and site staff from 7 construction sites. Baseline assessments of safety performance in the categories of housekeeping, access to heights, bamboo scaffolding, and personal protective equipment were conducted for 17 weeks prior to introduction of the intervention. The intervention consisted of participative goal setting and performance feedback - goal setting meetings were conducted by the researcher and involved showing a series of slides depicting good and bad practice; giving workers feedback from the period of baseline measurement; and setting a realistic goal for improvement. Progress was then monitored and weekly feedback given for a period of 8 week. Measurement of safety outcomes was taken twice weekly for the duration of the 34 week intervention period. % of with safety regulations Housekeeping: Significant improvements in safety scores were seen in 5 of the 7 sites. A significant deterioration in safety was seen in 4 sites following the removal of the feedback intervention. Access to heights: Significant improvements in 2 sites (a further 3 improved but NS). A significant deterioration was observed on one site following removal. Bamboo scaffolding: No significant improvements were seen following introduction of the intervention. No improvements were seen in the control condition.
month Mancini et al., (2005). Total N not reported; N=237 factories participated Educational campaign: tailored brochure about eye injuries in metal workers and technical/legal preventative measures (distributed to metal workers; vocational secondary schools, hospital emergency departments/waiting rooms, trade union offices, town halls). Evening local television/radio interviews with an ophthalmologist and occupational physician were broadcast providing expert advice on the importance of use of protective equipment for the prevention of injuries. Educational articles appeared in local newspaper and a free magazine. Following the active intervention period, unannounced official inspections were performed to reinforce the message of the campaign and to monitor secondary outcomes. This phase lasted 4 years. Measurement for the study was conducted over the period Pre (1988 - 1990), peri-intervention (1991-1992), reinforcement (1993-1996), late post (1997-2000), and very late post (2001-2003) periods were measured. Eye injuries; expressed as no. of eye injuries per no. of workers at risk. Overall reductions were seen in eye and injuries over the study period. The sharpest reduction was eye injuries amongst metal workers (80% reduction during the study period 1988-2003). There was a greater reduction in eye injury rates compared to injury rates amongst metal workers. Metal workers had a fivefold increased risk of an eye injury. Reductions in eye injury rates amongst metal workers were sustained following the main intervention. Sokas et al., (2009). N=175 (92 included in pre-post analysis) The intervention was part of a hazard awareness training program, which includes classroom learning, hands-on controlled workshop activities, and actual experience in work settings. Workers attended two training sessions. Details of the training program were not reported in the paper. Data collected at baseline and three-month follow-up; the intervention was delivered over two sessions (between Nov 2004 and Jan 2006). Knowledge and attitudes as measured a purpose-designed questionnaire; safety practices. There were significant increases in fall and electrical knowledge following participation in the training sessions. There was no change in attitudes overall; however, fewer workers said they would accept an extra $50 per day to work with less safety after training. Due to the measure of safety practices it was not possible to compare pre- and post-scores. There were no improvements in safety climate ratings from pre to post intervention.