Kerr et al., N=343 Participants randomly assigned to 1 Baseline, 6 Self-reported % of There was a significant time effect with HPD (2007). of 4 intervention groups: (1) months: booster time workers used use rising from 42% to 50% (tailored tailored; (2) tailored + booster; (3) (if in selected hearing protection improved by 8.3%, targeted improved by targeted; (4) targeted + booster. The group); 12 month when exposed to 6.1%). There was no difference in the degree of intervention (all groups): follow up loud noise in their improvement between the tailored and interactive multi-media most recent job, job targeted groups and no significant effects of game-format educational program: before that and in the booster on HPD use. 58% of the variance in participants had to foil a noise villain the preceding 12 HPD use was explained by past behaviour, use by using hearing protection. months. of social models of HPD use and benefits and Targeted version: generic messages barriers (support for the model). incorporating components of the PUHP model; Tailored version: individualised messages based on worker responses to survey Qs assessing components of the model. Six months later, participants in the booster conditions received an informational handout reminding them of the game theme. Kines et al., Total N not The intervention involved worksite The intervention Frequency of In intervention group 1, there was an increase (2010). reported; foremen receiving 8 bi-weekly period lasted 16 in foremen-worker safety exchanges from 6% N=5-17 coaching sessions by members of the weeks. Data communication; at baseline to 62% post intervention and 46% workers on research team to include safety collection at safety performance at follow-up (p < .001). No increases were seen any given day issues in their daily verbal exchanges baseline, as observed by in intervention group 2. There was a significant from 5 with workers. Following weekly and research team increase in safety performance for the two construction interviews with workers, follow-up site walk-rounds. intervention groups combined. No significant work gangs. foremen were given bi-weekly (between 8 and 16 changes were seen amongst the control groups feedback regarding the verbal weeks). in communication or performance. exchanges.
Kerr et al., (2007). N=343 Participants randomly assigned to 1 of 4 intervention groups: (1) tailored; (2) tailored + booster; (3) targeted; (4) targeted + booster. The intervention (all groups): interactive multi-media game-format educational program: participants had to foil a noise villain by using hearing protection. Targeted version: generic messages incorporating components of the PUHP model; Tailored version: individualised messages based on worker responses to survey Qs assessing components of the model. Six months later, participants in the booster conditions received an informational handout reminding them of the game theme. Baseline, 6 months: booster (if in selected group); 12 month follow up Self-reported % of time workers used hearing protection when exposed to loud noise in their most recent job, job before that and in the preceding 12 months. There was a significant time effect with HPD use rising from 42% to 50% (tailored improved by 8.3%, targeted improved by 6.1%). There was no difference in the degree of improvement between the tailored and targeted groups and no significant effects of the booster on HPD use. 58% of the variance in HPD use was explained by past behaviour, use of social models of HPD use and benefits and barriers (support for the model). Kines et al., (2010). Total N not reported; N=5-17 workers on any given day from 5 construction work gangs. The intervention involved worksite foremen receiving 8 bi-weekly coaching sessions by members of the research team to include safety issues in their daily verbal exchanges with workers. Following weekly interviews with workers, foremen were given bi-weekly feedback regarding the verbal exchanges. The intervention period lasted 16 weeks. Data collection at baseline, and follow-up (between 8 and 16 weeks). Frequency of communication; safety performance as observed by research team walk-rounds. In intervention group 1, there was an increase in foremen-worker safety exchanges from 6% at baseline to 62% post intervention and 46% at follow-up (p < .001). No increases were seen in intervention group 2. There was a significant increase in safety performance for the two intervention groups combined. No significant changes were seen amongst the control groups in communication or performance. site
1-s2.0-S0925753515001460-mmc1.docx