Marvin Lewiton | PubMed Health

PubMed2005

Improving the prevention and control of hazardous substance exposures: a randomized controlled trial in manufacturing worksites.

BACKGROUND: New measures of exposure prevention (EP) activity were used to evaluate the effectiveness of a 16-month management-focused intervention addressing hazardous substance exposures in manufacturing work settings. METHODS: EP efforts were assessed using a rating scheme developed for this study. The rating scheme yields a set of measures of exposure potential and protection, which are combined into an overall EP summary rating. A randomized, controlled design was used to assess intervention effectiveness. Fifteen large manufacturing worksites completed the 16-month intervention and follow-up assessments. Analyses were conducted on the 107 production processes assessed at both baseline and final. RESULTS: Patterns of improvement within the intervention condition were consistent with the intervention emphasis on upstream or source-focused intervention; whereas patterns in controls were consistent with prevalent practice (more downstream, worker-focused). A mixed model analysis of variance showed greater improvement in EP ratings in intervention versus controls, but the difference in improvement was moderate and statistically non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that EP efforts in the manufacturing sector can be systematically assessed across the full range of hazardous substances in use, and that such assessments can serve both needs assessment and effectiveness evaluation functions. Findings suggest that more sustained or intense management-focused intervention would significantly improve EP activity in manufacturing settings.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

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.

Adult↗