Version HTML de base
Spécial “ Noise at work 2007 ”
17
Acoustique
&
Techniques n° 49
Atelier : Comment impliquer le personnel concerné ?
Barriers to occupational noise management
urrently around the world the true incidence of
occupational hearing loss (OHL) is not decreasing [1,2].
This is despite a full understanding of the cause if not the
exact mechanism of hearing loss and the constant creation
of better ideas to reduce noise exposure. Some jurisdictions
have demonstrated an apparent decrease in the incidence
of new claims for OHL in the workers’compensation system
however, this can be explained by the introduction of
a ‘fence’ or specific degree of hearing loss that must be
demonstrated before a claim can be lodged [3].
OHL is completely preventable [4] and the majority of
those who are exposed to noise in the workplace are well
aware that constant exposure to high levels of noise will
damage their hearing [5,6,7]. However, even with the best
of intentions occupational noise management programmes
do not seem to work as well as expected and barriers seem
to exist impeeding successful implementation [7,8].
Method
Individuals were asked to complete a questionnaire
when attending an audiometric test clinic. Audiometric
testing is required in Australia [9] if an occupational
noise management programme, mandated by the
respective jurisdictional occupational health and safety
(OHS) legislation, is to meet the Australian Standard [9]
and applicable codes of practice [3]. The Standard states
that if individuals work in areas considered noise exposed
then they shall have audiometric tests on a regular basis
to monitor their hearing. All participants were personally
approached by the audiometric tester and asked if they
were willing to participate. Hence only those agreeing
are included in these results (ie 100 % participation). All
of the experimental work was covered by appropriate
ethical approval and audiometric tests were carried out to
Australian requirements [3]. The questionnaire consisted
of twenty closed questions and two open questions. The
questions addressed attitudes, perceptions, feelings of
susceptibility and self-efficacy and barriers to action with
respect to noise in the workplace and requested responses
on a four point Likert scale ranging from “Yes, I strongly
agree”, “Yes, I agree”, “No, I disagree” to “No, I strongly
disagree”. Two open ended questions asked for responses
to the questions
: “What is the main thing that stops you
from reducing noise you experience at work
?” and “If there
was one thing that could assist you in reducing the noise
you work in what would it be
?”.
The questions themselves had been developed, piloted
and verified as part of prior similar studies [7,10,11].
The responses to the questions presented were intended
to represent the feelings, thoughts and attitudes of the
individual and not that of the workplace, management, their
work colleagues or others responsible for the workplace.
Only the results addressing barriers specifically are
presented here. The questionnaire items relating to barriers
are presented in Table 1.
Warwick Williams
National Acoustic Laboratories
126 Greville Street
Chatswood
2067, NSW,
Australia
E-mail: warwick.williams@nal.gov.au
Summary
This presentation looks at work aimed at determining the characteristics of the
barriers that exist in many workplaces to the successful implementation of a noise
exposure management programme. The results are presented from surveys
questioning workers from many workplaces about their attitudes and thoughts
toward noise exposure and the prevention of occupational hearing loss.
Résumé
Cet article présente les conclusions d’une étude visant à déterminer la nature
des obstacles à la mise en place de programmes efficaces de gestion du bruit
au travail. Les résultats présentés sont issus de questionnaires soumis à des
employés sur divers lieux de travail, concernant leurs comportements et leurs
opinions par rapport au bruit au travail et à la prévention des risques auditif
professionnels.
C