OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce wood dust, a carcinogen, by approximately 26% in small woodworking businesses. METHODS: We randomized 48 businesses to an intervention (written recommendations, technical assistance, and worker training) or comparison (written recommendations alone) condition. Changes from baseline in dust concentration, dust control methods, and worker behavior were compared between the groups 1 year later. RESULTS: At follow-up, workers in intervention relative to comparison businesses reported greater awareness, increases in stage of readiness, and behavioral changes consistent with dust control. The median dust concentration change in the intervention group from baseline to follow-up was 10.4% (95% confidence interval = -28.8%, 12.7%) lower than the change in comparison businesses. CONCLUSIONS: We attribute the smaller-than-expected reduction in wood dust to the challenge of conducting rigorous intervention effectiveness research in occupational settings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce wood dust, a carcinogen, by approximately 26% in small woodworking businesses. METHODS: We randomized 48 businesses to an intervention (written recommendations, technical assistance, and worker training) or comparison (written recommendations alone) condition. Changes from baseline in dust concentration, dust control methods, and worker behavior were compared between the groups 1 year later. RESULTS: At follow-up, workers in intervention relative to comparison businesses reported greater awareness, increases in stage of readiness, and behavioral changes consistent with dust control. The median dust concentration change in the intervention group from baseline to follow-up was 10.4% (95% confidence interval = -28.8%, 12.7%) lower than the change in comparison businesses. CONCLUSIONS: We attribute the smaller-than-expected reduction in wood dust to the challenge of conducting rigorous intervention effectiveness research in occupational settings.
Authors: B K Rimer; N Resch; E King; E Ross; C Lerman; A Boyce; H Kessler; P F Engstrom Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 1992 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: R E Glasgow; J R Terborg; J F Hollis; H H Severson; K J Fisher; S M Boles; E L Pettigrew; L S Foster; L A Strycker; S Bischoff Journal: Health Educ Q Date: 1994
Authors: J O Prochaska; W F Velicer; J S Rossi; M G Goldstein; B H Marcus; W Rakowski; C Fiore; L L Harlow; C A Redding; D Rosenbloom Journal: Health Psychol Date: 1994-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: M K Campbell; B M DeVellis; V J Strecher; A S Ammerman; R F DeVellis; R S Sandler Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: F Curtis Breslin; Natasha Kyle; Philip Bigelow; Emma Irvin; Sara Morassaei; Ellen MacEachen; Quenby Mahood; Rachel Couban; Harry Shannon; Benjamin C Amick Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2010-06
Authors: Karen M Oude Hengel; Erik van Deurssen; Tim Meijster; Erik Tielemans; Dick Heederik; Anjoeka Pronk Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 3.295