Too late smart: farmers' adoption of self-protective behaviors in response to exposure to hazardous noise

Motivational Interviewing to Encourage Agricultural Producers' Use of Hearing Protection Devices: A Mixed-Method Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Workers in production agriculture are frequently exposed to high noise levels and face unique barriers to implementing hearing protection, leading to occupational hearing loss. Motivational interviewing is a promising approach to assist workers in preserving their hearing.

METHODS

This pilot study used a mixed-method approach to evaluate the feasibility of an innovative motivational interviewing intervention for agricultural producers from February to May 2021. Qualitative data included coaches' and participants' comments and were coded using a structural coding approach. Quantitative data included Likert-type-style responses given by participants in a post-intervention survey. Data types were then integrated.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants were recruited during the 4-month pilot. Participants' satisfaction scores averaged above six on a 7-point scale for all satisfaction questions. Implementation factors included the intervention's flexibility, services provided by the coaches beyond motivational interviewing, and difficulties with recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS/APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE

This motivational interviewing intervention was highly acceptable to participants, but factors affecting implementation may challenge scalability.

Towards a Holistic Model Explaining Hearing Protection Device Use among Workers

Offering hearing protection devices (HPDs) to workers exposed to hazardous noise is a noise control strategy often used to prevent noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). However, HPDs are used incorrectly and inconsistently, which explains their limited efficiency. Numerous models based on social cognition theories identify the significant factors associated with inconsistent HPD use and aim to improve HPD training programs and to increase HPD use. However, these models do not detail (dis)comfort aspects originating from complex interactions between characteristics of the triad “environment/person/HPD” while these aspects are known to largely influence HPD (mis)use. This paper proposes a holistic model explaining HPD (mis)use, based on the integration of a comfort model adapted to HPDs into an existing behavioral model already developed for HPDs. The model also takes into account the temporal dimension, which makes it possible to capture the scope of change in HPD-related health behaviors. This holistic description of HPD use could be used as a tool for stakeholders involved in HPD use to effectively prevent NIHL among workers.

Effects of interventions on use of hearing protectors among farm operators: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three interventions designed to promote hearing protector device (HPD) use.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

STUDY SAMPLE

Farm operators (n = 491) were randomly assigned to one of five intervention groups: (1) interactive web-based information with mailed assortment of HPDs; (2) Interactive web-based information only; (3) static web-based information with mailed assortment of HPDs; (4) Static web-based information only; or (5) mailed assortment of HPDs only. Data were analysed using a mixed model approach.

RESULTS

HPD use increased among all participants, and increased more among participants receiving the mailed HPDs (with or without information) compared to participants receiving other interventions. Participants receiving the interactive web-based information had comparable increased use of HPDs to those receiving the static web-based information. Participants receiving the mailed HPDs had more positive situational influences scale scores than other participants. Program satisfaction was highest among mailed and web-based information groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A mailed assortment of hearing protectors was more effective than information. Interactive and static information delivered via web were similarly effective. Programs interested in increasing HPD use among farmers should consider making hearing protectors more available to farmers.

Effects of a low intensity intervention to increase hearing protector use among noise-exposed workers

BACKGROUND

Farm operators experience exposure to high noise and high prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss, but use of hearing protection in this worker group is low. The purpose of this study was to test a brief intervention to increase farm operators' use of hearing protection.

METHODS

In this one-group pre- and post-test study, a random sample of 32 members of a farmers' organization was supplied a variety of hearing protectors. Participants received an assortment of hearing protectors by mail with manufacturer's instructions for use.

RESULTS

Mean pre-intervention hearing protector use when in high noise in this group was 23% (SD 29). Of the 32 participants, 27 (84%) were exposed to hazardous noise during the study period. Post-intervention mean use of HPDs was 64%, an increase of 41% (t = 5.26, P < 000).

CONCLUSION

Results of this study suggest that overall, hearing protectors were acceptable to farm operators, and that a brief mailed intervention is feasible.