Occupational and environmental medicine · 2006
Intervention development in occupational research: an example from the printing industry.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brown T P, Rushton L, Williams H C, English J S C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intervention development research is an essential prerequisite of any study that attempts to determine whether specific interventions work to prevent work related injury and illness.
METHODS: Focus groups (n = 5) and direct observational studies (n = 21) of printers were used to elicit key issues that would aid the development of subsequent interventions. Transcripts from these were analysed by standard qualitative methods to identify common and related themes.
RESULTS: The views of managers differed significantly from those of print workers in a number of areas, and working practices did not always follow policy. The majority of printers did not perceive dermatitis to be a major problem, although many complained of dry hands. Other key results included: the lack of skin care policy in most companies; poor understanding of the nature, causes, and treatment of dermatitis; low priority of dermatitis within health and safety concerns; little or no provision of occupational health services, particularly skin checks; variability in provision of and access to appropriate skin protection; and lack of accessible washing facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: As a result it was decided to evaluate the implementation of four
INTERVENTIONS: provision of (1) skin checks and treatment advice; (2) gloves of the correct type and size, and use of an after-work cream; (3) information on dermatitis within the printing industry; and (4) development of best practice skin care policy.
METHODS: Focus groups (n = 5) and direct observational studies (n = 21) of printers were used to elicit key issues that would aid the development of subsequent interventions. Transcripts from these were analysed by standard qualitative methods to identify common and related themes.
RESULTS: The views of managers differed significantly from those of print workers in a number of areas, and working practices did not always follow policy. The majority of printers did not perceive dermatitis to be a major problem, although many complained of dry hands. Other key results included: the lack of skin care policy in most companies; poor understanding of the nature, causes, and treatment of dermatitis; low priority of dermatitis within health and safety concerns; little or no provision of occupational health services, particularly skin checks; variability in provision of and access to appropriate skin protection; and lack of accessible washing facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: As a result it was decided to evaluate the implementation of four
INTERVENTIONS: provision of (1) skin checks and treatment advice; (2) gloves of the correct type and size, and use of an after-work cream; (3) information on dermatitis within the printing industry; and (4) development of best practice skin care policy.