Mancini et al., Total N not Educational campaign: tailored Measurement for Eye injuries; Overall reductions were seen in eye and (2005). reported; brochure about eye injuries in metal the study was expressed as no. of injuries over the study period. The N=237 workers and technical/legal conducted over eye injuries per no. sharpest reduction was eye injuries amongst preventative measures (distributed the period of workers at risk. metal workers (80% reduction during the factories to metal workers; vocational study period 1988-2003). There was a greater participated secondary schools, hospital Pre (1988 - 1990), reduction in eye injury rates compared to emergency departments/waiting peri-intervention injury rates amongst metal workers. Metal rooms, trade union offices, town (1991-1992), workers had a fivefold increased risk of an eye halls). Evening local television/radio injury. Reductions in eye injury rates amongst interviews with an ophthalmologist reinforcement metal workers were sustained following the and occupational physician were (1993-1996), late main intervention. broadcast providing expert advice on post (1997-2000), the importance of use of protective and very late post equipment for the prevention of (2001-2003) injuries. Educational articles periods were appeared in local newspaper and a measured. free magazine. Following the month active intervention period, unannounced official inspections were performed to reinforce the message of the campaign and to monitor secondary outcomes. This phase lasted 4 years. Sokas et al., N=175 (92 The intervention was part of a Data collected at Knowledge and There were significant increases in fall and (2009). included in hazard awareness training baseline and attitudes as electrical knowledge following participation in pre-post program, which includes classroom three-month measured a the training sessions. analysis) learning, hands-on controlled follow-up; the purpose-designed There was no change in attitudes overall; workshop activities, and actual intervention was questionnaire; however, fewer workers said they would experience in work settings. delivered over two safety accept an extra $50 per day to work with less Workers attended two training sessions (between practices. safety after training. Due to the measure of sessions. Details of the training Nov 2004 and Jan safety practices it was not possible to compare program were not reported in the 2006). pre- and post-scores. There were no paper. improvements in safety climate ratings from pre to post intervention.
month Mancini et al., (2005). Total N not reported; N=237 factories participated Educational campaign: tailored brochure about eye injuries in metal workers and technical/legal preventative measures (distributed to metal workers; vocational secondary schools, hospital emergency departments/waiting rooms, trade union offices, town halls). Evening local television/radio interviews with an ophthalmologist and occupational physician were broadcast providing expert advice on the importance of use of protective equipment for the prevention of injuries. Educational articles appeared in local newspaper and a free magazine. Following the active intervention period, unannounced official inspections were performed to reinforce the message of the campaign and to monitor secondary outcomes. This phase lasted 4 years. Measurement for the study was conducted over the period Pre (1988 - 1990), peri-intervention (1991-1992), reinforcement (1993-1996), late post (1997-2000), and very late post (2001-2003) periods were measured. Eye injuries; expressed as no. of eye injuries per no. of workers at risk. Overall reductions were seen in eye and injuries over the study period. The sharpest reduction was eye injuries amongst metal workers (80% reduction during the study period 1988-2003). There was a greater reduction in eye injury rates compared to injury rates amongst metal workers. Metal workers had a fivefold increased risk of an eye injury. Reductions in eye injury rates amongst metal workers were sustained following the main intervention. Sokas et al., (2009). N=175 (92 included in pre-post analysis) The intervention was part of a hazard awareness training program, which includes classroom learning, hands-on controlled workshop activities, and actual experience in work settings. Workers attended two training sessions. Details of the training program were not reported in the paper. Data collected at baseline and three-month follow-up; the intervention was delivered over two sessions (between Nov 2004 and Jan 2006). Knowledge and attitudes as measured a purpose-designed questionnaire; safety practices. There were significant increases in fall and electrical knowledge following participation in the training sessions. There was no change in attitudes overall; however, fewer workers said they would accept an extra $50 per day to work with less safety after training. Due to the measure of safety practices it was not possible to compare pre- and post-scores. There were no improvements in safety climate ratings from pre to post intervention.
1-s2.0-S0925753515001460-mmc1.docx