Version HTML de base
20
Spécial “ Noise at work 2007 ”
Acoustique
&
Techniques n° 49
Barriers to occupational noise management
Discussion
This analysis highlights four significant factors that influence
action that may be taken to reduce personal noise exposure
in the workplace
: hearing protectors
; information
; culture
;
and management. These barriers that prevent the individual
from taking action could be considered as having two main
origins extrinsic and intrinsic
:
- Extrinsic barriers are those barriers that have their origin(s)
external to the individual, such as lack of management
policy
; non-supply of personal protective equipment
; lack
of consultation, education and training
; while
- Intrinsic barriers are those barriers that have their origin(s)
internal to the individual, such as lack of knowledge
; lack
of education
; lack of self-efficacy.
The actual barriers that present in the workplace
may be some combination of intrinsic and extrinsic
factors. For example, consider the ‘information’factor
arising from the present results. The two questions
from which this factor arises were ‘Work should supply
more information on noise’and ‘I would like to know
how to reduce noise’. The first question is essentially
extrinsic in that the workplace should be supplying more
information, a source external to the individual, while
the second question is essentially intrinsic with the
individual declaring a lack of knowledge and wishing
to know more. Some self-motivating individuals may
act so as to find out more information by themselves,
while others simply wait in a passive manner hoping
that the workplace will be more forthcoming. Only a
small percentage of people (7
%) mentioned the need
for additional information through the open questions.
Part of the driving force for preventative action
for individuals may be how seriously they view the
consequence(s) of their not taking any action will be to
their future health. This is where optimistic bias plays a
significant role. Research shows that individuals consistently
underestimate their own risk for a variety of health problems
[12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. In comparison to their peers
individuals “on average see themselves as below average
risk” (p 129) [13]. While optimistic bias can be beneficial in
encouraging people to strive harder for success in positive
situations, this same attitude can lead to harmful behaviour
when it does not match the existing risk in negative health
situations [14].
If we relate this concept to workplace noise, this implies
that, although individuals realise there is a definite risk
to hearing health when exposed to noise, they interpret
their personal risk as being less than that of the general
population. Thus, there is less incentive to take preventative
action. This is in line with results found with respect to
smoking behaviour [16], and attitudes toward both motor
vehicle accidents and skin cancer [18].
An optimistic bias is evidenced when those without a hearing
loss see less reason to take preventative action than those
who are experiencing the difficulties that come with a loss.
This is related to hearing loss not being perceived as a
problem until actually experienced [4,19].
Conclusion
Four main factors acting as perceived barriers to the
adoption of preventative action against noise exposure
in the workplace were identified
: hearing protectors
;
information
; culture
; and management. Individuals who
felt they had a hearing loss tended to have a lower overall
perception of barriers to preventative action. There were
differences between men and women for the first three
of the factors but not for the fourth. Together with these
barriers there was evidence for an optimistic bias effect
whereby individuals tended to estimate their potential risk
to a noise health hazard as being less than the risk to
others.
If individuals do not perceive they have a problem, why
would they take preventative measures
? If we expect to be
able to reduce workplace noise exposure and the incidence
of occupational hearing loss the dual problems of perceived
barriers and optimistic bias need to be appropriately
addressed.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their efforts in gathering the audiometric and questionnaire
data
: M.
Gray-Thompson, L. Shenkar
; K. Challinor
; P.
Foster
; A. O’Neill
; R. Walmsay
; M. Curby
; and B. Yeo.
Bibliography
[1] Metz, M. (2000) The Failed hearing Conservation Paradigm, Audiology Today,
September/October 2000, Vol 12, No 5 : pp 13 - 15 NOHSC (1991) Noise
Management at Work – Control Guide, second edition, National Occupational
Health and Safety Commission, Sydney
[2] Daniell, WE, Swan, SS, McDaniel, MM, Camp, JE, Cohen, MA & Stebbins, JG
(2006) Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years
of regulations in the United States, Occup Environ Med 2006 : 63 : pp 343 – 351
[3] NOHSC (2004) Occupational Disease Profiles – National Prevention of
Occupational Noise Induced Hearing Loss, Summary Report, National Health and
Safety Commission, August, 2004
[4] Sataloff, RT & Sataloff, J (1987) Occupational Hearing Loss, Marcel Dekker
Inc, New York
Weinstein, ND (1980) Unreal Optimism About Future Life Events, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 39, No 5 ; pp 806 – 820
[5] McCullagh, M, Lusk SL, Ronis, DL. (2002) Factors Influencing Use of Hearing
Protection Among Farmers : A Test of the Pender Health Promotion Model, Nurs
Res. 2002 Jan-Feb ; 51 (1) : 33-9.
[6] Rabinowitz, PM & Duran R (2001) Is acculturation related to use of hearing
protection ?, Yale Occupational and Environmental Medicine Program, Sep-Oct ;
62 (5) : 611-614 Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, USA
[7] Williams, W, Purdy, S, Murray, N, Le Page, E & Challinor, K (2004) Hearing
loss and perceptions of noise in the workplace amongst rural Australians,
Australian Journal of Rural Health 12 : pp 115 - 119
[8] Patel, DS, Witte, K, Zuckerman, C, Murray-Johnson, L, Orrego, V, Maxfield,
AM, Meadows- Hogan, S, & Timmons, ED (2001) Understanding Barriers to
Preventative health Actions for Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, Journal
of Health Communication, Vol 6 : pp 155 - 168
[9] Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1269.4 : 2004 Occupational noise
management, Part 4 Auditory assessment, Standards Australia, Sydney
[10] Purdy, SC & Williams, W (2002) Development of the Noise at Work
Questionnaire to assess perceptions of noise in the workplace, J Occup Health
Safety – Aust NZ 2002, 18 (1) : pp 77 - 83
[
11] Williams, W, Purdy, S, Murray, N, Dillon, H, LePage, E, Challinor, K & Storey,
L (2004) Does the presentation of audiometric test data have a positive effect
on the perceptions of workplace noise and noise exposure avoidance ? , Noise &
Health 6, 24 : pp 75 - 84