干预需求评估与效果评价的暴露预防分级方法。

Anthony D LaMontagne, Richard A Youngstrom, Marvin Lewiton, Anne M Stoddard, Melissa J Perry, Janelle M Klar, David C Christiani, Glorian Sorensen
{"title":"干预需求评估与效果评价的暴露预防分级方法。","authors":"Anthony D LaMontagne,&nbsp;Richard A Youngstrom,&nbsp;Marvin Lewiton,&nbsp;Anne M Stoddard,&nbsp;Melissa J Perry,&nbsp;Janelle M Klar,&nbsp;David C Christiani,&nbsp;Glorian Sorensen","doi":"10.1080/10473220301458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article describes a new method for (1) systematically prioritizing needs for intervention on hazardous substance exposures in manufacturing work sites, and (2) evaluating intervention effectiveness. We developed a checklist containing six unique sets of yes/no variables organized in a 2 x 3 matrix of exposure potential versus protection (two columns) at the levels of materials, processes, and human interface (three rows). The three levels correspond to a simplified hierarchy of controls. Each of the six sets of indicator variables was reduced to a high/moderate/low rating. Ratings from the matrix were then combined to generate a single overall exposure prevention rating for each area. Reflecting the hierarchy of controls, material factors were weighted highest, followed by process, and then human interface. The checklist was filled out by an industrial hygienist while conducting a walk-through inspection (N = 131 manufacturing processes/areas in 17 large work sites). One area or process per manufacturing department was assessed and rated. Based on the resulting Exposure Prevention ratings, we concluded that exposures were well controlled in the majority of areas assessed (64% with rating of 1 or 2 on a 6-point scale), that there is some room for improvement in 26 percent of areas (rating of 3 or 4), and that roughly 10 percent of the areas assessed are urgently in need of intervention (rated as 5 or 6). A second hygienist independently assessed a subset of areas to evaluate inter-rater reliability. The reliability of the overall exposure prevention ratings was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.84). The rating scheme has good discriminatory power and reliability and shows promise as a broadly applicable and inexpensive tool for intervention needs assessment and effectiveness evaluation. Validation studies are needed as a next step. This assessment method complements quantitative exposure assessment with an upstream prevention focus.</p>","PeriodicalId":8182,"journal":{"name":"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene","volume":"18 7","pages":"523-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10473220301458","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An exposure prevention rating method for intervention needs assessment and effectiveness evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Anthony D LaMontagne,&nbsp;Richard A Youngstrom,&nbsp;Marvin Lewiton,&nbsp;Anne M Stoddard,&nbsp;Melissa J Perry,&nbsp;Janelle M Klar,&nbsp;David C Christiani,&nbsp;Glorian Sorensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10473220301458\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article describes a new method for (1) systematically prioritizing needs for intervention on hazardous substance exposures in manufacturing work sites, and (2) evaluating intervention effectiveness. We developed a checklist containing six unique sets of yes/no variables organized in a 2 x 3 matrix of exposure potential versus protection (two columns) at the levels of materials, processes, and human interface (three rows). The three levels correspond to a simplified hierarchy of controls. Each of the six sets of indicator variables was reduced to a high/moderate/low rating. Ratings from the matrix were then combined to generate a single overall exposure prevention rating for each area. Reflecting the hierarchy of controls, material factors were weighted highest, followed by process, and then human interface. The checklist was filled out by an industrial hygienist while conducting a walk-through inspection (N = 131 manufacturing processes/areas in 17 large work sites). One area or process per manufacturing department was assessed and rated. Based on the resulting Exposure Prevention ratings, we concluded that exposures were well controlled in the majority of areas assessed (64% with rating of 1 or 2 on a 6-point scale), that there is some room for improvement in 26 percent of areas (rating of 3 or 4), and that roughly 10 percent of the areas assessed are urgently in need of intervention (rated as 5 or 6). A second hygienist independently assessed a subset of areas to evaluate inter-rater reliability. The reliability of the overall exposure prevention ratings was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.84). The rating scheme has good discriminatory power and reliability and shows promise as a broadly applicable and inexpensive tool for intervention needs assessment and effectiveness evaluation. Validation studies are needed as a next step. This assessment method complements quantitative exposure assessment with an upstream prevention focus.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8182,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene\",\"volume\":\"18 7\",\"pages\":\"523-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10473220301458\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10473220301458\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10473220301458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

本文描述了一种新的方法,用于(1)系统地优先考虑对制造工作场所有害物质暴露的干预需求,以及(2)评估干预效果。我们开发了一份清单,其中包含六组独特的是/否变量,组织在材料、工艺和人机界面(三行)水平上的2 × 3暴露潜力与保护(两列)矩阵中。这三个层次对应于一个简化的控件层次结构。六组指标变量中的每一组都被降低为高/中/低评级。然后将来自矩阵的评级结合起来,为每个区域生成一个单一的总体暴露预防评级。反映控制层次,材料因素权重最高,其次是过程,然后是人机界面。检查表由工业卫生学家在进行巡视检查时填写(17个大型工作场所的131个制造过程/区域)。对每个制造部门的一个区域或过程进行评估和评级。基于结果暴露预防评级,我们得出结论,曝光控制在大多数地区评估与评级(64%的1或2 6个范围),有一些改进的空间在26%的地区(评级为3或4),大约10%的地区迫切需要干预的评估(被评为5或6)。第二个牙医独立评估领域的一个子集来评估两分的可靠性。总体防暴露评分的可靠性极好(加权kappa = 0.84)。该评价方案具有良好的判别能力和可靠性,有望成为一种广泛适用且价格低廉的干预需求评价和有效性评价工具。下一步需要进行验证研究。这种评估方法补充了以上游预防为重点的定量暴露评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An exposure prevention rating method for intervention needs assessment and effectiveness evaluation.

This article describes a new method for (1) systematically prioritizing needs for intervention on hazardous substance exposures in manufacturing work sites, and (2) evaluating intervention effectiveness. We developed a checklist containing six unique sets of yes/no variables organized in a 2 x 3 matrix of exposure potential versus protection (two columns) at the levels of materials, processes, and human interface (three rows). The three levels correspond to a simplified hierarchy of controls. Each of the six sets of indicator variables was reduced to a high/moderate/low rating. Ratings from the matrix were then combined to generate a single overall exposure prevention rating for each area. Reflecting the hierarchy of controls, material factors were weighted highest, followed by process, and then human interface. The checklist was filled out by an industrial hygienist while conducting a walk-through inspection (N = 131 manufacturing processes/areas in 17 large work sites). One area or process per manufacturing department was assessed and rated. Based on the resulting Exposure Prevention ratings, we concluded that exposures were well controlled in the majority of areas assessed (64% with rating of 1 or 2 on a 6-point scale), that there is some room for improvement in 26 percent of areas (rating of 3 or 4), and that roughly 10 percent of the areas assessed are urgently in need of intervention (rated as 5 or 6). A second hygienist independently assessed a subset of areas to evaluate inter-rater reliability. The reliability of the overall exposure prevention ratings was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.84). The rating scheme has good discriminatory power and reliability and shows promise as a broadly applicable and inexpensive tool for intervention needs assessment and effectiveness evaluation. Validation studies are needed as a next step. This assessment method complements quantitative exposure assessment with an upstream prevention focus.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信