/ / Downloaded from tkj.ssu.ac.ir at 20:33 IRST on Thursday March 7th (Hearing Protection Devices=HPDs). HPDs. . HPDs

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "/ / Downloaded from tkj.ssu.ac.ir at 20:33 IRST on Thursday March 7th (Hearing Protection Devices=HPDs). HPDs. . HPDs"

Philomena Pope
5 years ago
Views:

1 /90 / / 2 2* /3/17 : 89/1/20 : 1. : (Hearing Protection Devices=HPDs).. HPDs. Pender s HPDs : HPDs.. HPDs %10. HPDs %50 %24 : " " ". HPDs %90 %50 %50 "HPDs.(P=0/06 P=0/04 ) : " " "HPDs ". HPDs HPDs. HPDs. HPDs : dr.shojaaddiny@gmail.com : *

2 9 /90 / / HPD.(10) HPD HPD HPD HPD.(11) 5 HPD (NIOSH) : 5C و Communication Cost onvenience Comfort.Climate.(12) HPD 1996 Pender (Cognition) (Affect).(13) Health ) (Promotion Model.(14 15) HPD HPD. (Safety Climate) Pender s Pender s (1 2).(3) 25 (EPA) (4) (5) (NIHL) NIHL.(6). NIHL (7). (HPD).(8) HPD.(7 9) NIHL (OSHA) Time-weighted 85 average HPD.

3 ... / HPD %10 % HPD % HPD %90 14.(1) HPD 5 HPD. 2 از )HPD ( ) HPD 50 ( 50 HPD HPD 0/06 0/04 P-value) 50 HPD.(0/06..(16) ) HPD ( HPD. HPD 3 %10-50 %10. %90 %51-90 HPD (15 17)Lusk. از (benefits)hpd (barriers)hpd interpersonal )HPD (influences (self-efficacy )HPD situational )HPD (influences (susceptibility)nihl. (severity of exposure). HPD (HPD Climate) ازHPD. (%80/5) ± 5/7.. 8/7 ± 7/5

4 11 /90 / / 22 «باال.(11) %34 HPD HPD. HPD HPD.(11) HPD. HPD. HPD HPD.(11 12)» HPD «HPD. HPD. ازHPD (Observed- HPD Use) (Reported HPD Use Self-) HPD.(16) HPD. NIHL HPD.(11) HPD.(18). 50 %24 HPD. HPD 139 HPD %17 85.(19) 41 ازHPD 1/4 Davis.(16) HPD % NIOSH.(20)» 1999

5 ... /12.( ).(25 14) HPD HPD HPD..HPD. HPD از HPD NIHL HPD.(11) HPD ازHPD. Melamed. HPD (22) HPD. Self-efficacy Edelson. HPD HPD. HPD Pender s HPM (OR=1/8 %95CI=1/2-2/5)HPD -1/9) (OR=1/4 %95CI=1/1.(16) HPD HPD 1. May JJ, Marvel M, Regan M, et al. Noise induced hearing loss in randomly selected New York dairy farmers. Am J Ind Med 1990; 18(3): Nelson DI, Nelson RY, Concha-Barrientos M, Fingerhut M. The global burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss. AmJ Ind Med 2005; 48: Leigh J, Macaskill P, Kuosma E, Mandryk J. Global burden of disease and injury due to occupational factors. Epidemiology 1999; 10(5): EPA. Noise in America: The extent of the noise problem. EPA Report No. 550/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC World Health Organization. The world health report(chapter 4). Selected occupational risks. Available from: 6. McCullagh M, Lusk S, Rosins D. Factors influencing use of hearing protection among farmers: A test of the pender health promotion model. Nursing research 2002; 51(1): Arezes PM, Miguel AS. Hearing protector's acceptability in noisy environments. Ann Occup Hyg 2002; 46:

6 13 /90 / / 8. NIOSH. Preventing occupational hearing loss. A practical guide. Cincinnati, OH: DHHS, CDC, NIOSH NIOSH. NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure. Revised Criteria Cincinnati, OH: DHHS, CDC, NIOSH. NIOSH Preventing occupational hearing loss. A practical guide. Cincinnati, OH: DHHS, CDC, NIOSH SHA. Occupational noise exposure. Standard Regulations; Occupational Safety and Health Standards. US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Tak S, Rickie D, Calvert G. Exposure to Hazardous Workplace Noise and Use of Hearing Protection Devices among US Workers. NHANES AJI M 2009; 52: Stephenson MR. Hearing Protection in the 21st Century: They re not your father s earplugs anymore. Seminars in Hearing 2009; 30: Pender, N. Health promotion in nursing practice. 3rd ed. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange Lusk S, Ronis D, Hogan M. Test of the health promotion model as a causal model of construction workers use of hearing protection. Res Nurs Health 1997; 20: Lusk SL, Ronis DL, Kerr MJ, et al. Test of the health promotion model as a causal model of workers use of hearing protection. Nurs Res 1994; 43: Edelson J, Neitzel R, Meischke H, et al. Predictors of Hearing Protection Use in Construction Workers. Ann Occup Hyg 2009; 53(6): Rabinowitz S, Melamed S, Feiner M, et al. Hostility and hearing protection behavior: The mediating role of personal beliefs and low frustration tolerance. JOHP 1996; 1(14): Roelofs CR, Barbeau EM, Ellenbecker MJ, Moure-Eraso R. Prevention strategies in industrial hygiene: a critical literature review. AIHA J 2003; 64(1): Neitzel R, Seixas N. The effectiveness of hearing protection among construction workers. J Occup Environ Hyg 2005; 2: Davis RR, Sieber WK. Hearing protector use in noise exposed workers: A retrospective look at1983. AIHA J 2002; 63: Rabinowitz PM, Galusha D, Dixon-Ernst C, et al. Do ambient noise exposure levels predict hearing loss in a modern industrial cohort? Occup Environ Med 2007; 64: Melamed S, Rabinowitz S, Feiner M, et al. Usefulness of the protection motivation theory in explaining hearing protection device use among male industrial workers. Health Psychol 1996; 15: Arezes PM, Miguel AS. Hearing protection use in industry: The role of risk perception. Saf Sci 2005; 43: Arezes PM, Miguel AS. Individual perception of noise exposure and hearing protection in industry. Hum Factors 2005; 47: Melamed S, Rabinowitz S, Green MS. Noise exposure, noise annoyance, use of hearing protection devices and distress among blue-collar workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 1994; 20:

Attitudes Toward Use of Hearing Protection Devices and Effects of an Intervention on Fit-Testing Results

Attitudes Toward Use of Hearing Protection Devices and Effects of an Intervention on Fit-Testing Results Pegeen S. Smith, MS, RN, COHN-S; Barbara A. Monaco, MS; Sally L. Lusk, PhD, RN, FAAN, FAAOHN ABSTRACT