WORKERS RESPONSE TO RISK NOTIFICATION

Citation
Wl. Boal et al., WORKERS RESPONSE TO RISK NOTIFICATION, American journal of industrial medicine, 27(4), 1995, pp. 471-483
Citations number
41
Categorie Soggetti
Public, Environmental & Occupation Heath
ISSN journal
02713586
Volume
27
Issue
4
Year of publication
1995
Pages
471 - 483
Database
ISI
SICI code
0271-3586(1995)27:4<471:WRTRN>2.0.ZU;2-U
Abstract
Since 1988, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has notified workers who were subjects in occupational epidemi ology studies of the study findings (''worker notification''). This pa per describes seven notifications and the worker's reactions to them. The chemicals of interest in the studies were: carbon monoxide, o-tolu idine, bis-chloromethyl ether, polychlorinated biphenyls, cadmium, aci d mist, and dioxin. Materials describing the study results were sent t o 15,958 subjects who were notified of their increased risk of arterio sclerotic heart disease, bladder cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, kidney dysfunction, laryngeal cancer, all cancers combined, or soft tissue s arcoma. Workers provided feedback via telephone calls, and for three n otifications, by postcards containing workers' comments and ratings of the notification materials. The percentage of telephone calls receive d from notified workers ranged from 0.3% to 3.8%, and the percentage r eturning postcards ranged from 8.8% to 17.6%. The two largest categori es of callers were those with questions about their disease risk (30%) or who reported on their health status (25%). Most of the comments on postcards (26%) were complimentary or expressed appreciation for rece iving the letters; reports of ill health were second (20%). A majority (66%) rated the notification materials well done. Few of the callers (5%) requested information on legal issues. Most (85%) did not find th e materials, which ranged in reading level from sixth to ninth grade, too hard to read, although 15% reported difficulty reading them. Altho ugh this response system was effective in producing some input from wo rkers, its limitation is that respondents may not be representative of all notified workers. However, such information is useful because the y are few data on the effects of notifications on workers. (C) 1995 Wi ley-Liss, Inc.