Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:37:46.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterizing Occupational Risk Perception: the Case of Biological, Ergonomic and Organizational Hazards in Spanish Healthcare Workers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2014

Mariona Portell ,
Rosa M. Gil ,
Josep M. Losilla  and
Jaume Vives
Mariona Portell*
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain)
Rosa M. Gil
Affiliation:
Grupo Sagessa (Spain)
Josep M. Losilla
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain)
Jaume Vives
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mariona Portell. Department of Psychobiology and Methodology of Health Sciences. Edificio B. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. 08193. Cerdanyola del Vallès (Spain). Phone: +34–935811623. Fax: + 34–935812001. E-mail: mariona.portell@uab.cat
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding how risk is perceived by workers is necessary for effective risk communication and risk management. This study adapts key elements of the psychometric perspective to characterize occupational risk perception at a worker level. A total of 313 Spanish healthcare workers evaluated relevant hazards in their workplaces related to biological, ergonomic and organizational factors. A questionnaire elicited workers' ratings of 3 occupational hazards on 9 risk attributes along with perceived risk. Factor and regression analyses reveal regularities in how different risks are perceived, while, at the same time, the procedure helps to summarize specificities in the perception of each hazard. The main regularity is the weight of feeling of dread/severity in order to characterize the risk perceived (β ranges from .22 to .41; p < .001). Data also suggest an underestimation of expert knowledge in relation to the personal knowledge of risk. Thus, participants consider their knowledge of the risk related to biological, ergonomic, and organizational hazards to be higher than the knowledge attributed to the occupational experts (mean differences 95% CIs [.10, .30], [.54, .94], and [0.52, 1.05]). We demonstrate the application of a feasible and systematic procedure to capture how workers perceive hazards in their immediate work environment.

Keywords

occupational healthrisk perceptionrisk communicationpsychometric paradigmhealthcare workers
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 17 , 2014 , E51
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexopoulos, E. C., Kavadi, Z., Bakoyannis, G., & Papantonopoulos, S. (2009). Subjective risk assessment and perception in the Greek and English bakery industries. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2009, Article ID 891754, 8 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2009/891754 Google Scholar
Aragonés, J. I., Moyano, E., & Talayero, F. (2008). Categorizing sources of risk and the estimated magnitude of risk. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 85–93.Google Scholar
Benthin, A., Slovic, P., & Severson, H. (1993). A psychometric study of adolescent risk perception. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 153–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.1993.1014 Google Scholar
Bergman, D., Arnetz, B., Wahlstrom, R., & Sandahl, C. (2007). Effects of dialogue groups on physicians' work environment. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 21, 27–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777260710732240 Google Scholar
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26, 136–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136 Google Scholar
Bronfman, N. C., & Cifuentes, L. A. (2003). Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile. Risk Analysis, 23, 1271–1285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00400.x Google Scholar
Caponecchia, C., & Sheils, I. (2011). Perceptions of personal vulnerability to workplace hazards in the Australian construction industry. Journal of Safety Research, 42, 253–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2011.06.006 Google Scholar
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1982). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1998). US HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 1998. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 1998, 10, 26.Google Scholar
Coles, R., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2008). A psychometric study of information technology risks in the workplace. Risk Analysis, 28, 81–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00963.x Google Scholar
Conchie, S., M. & Burns, C. (2008). Trust and risk communication in high-risk organization: A test of principles from social risk research. Risk analysis, 28, 141–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01006.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2007). E-facts 18: Risk assessment in health care. Bilbao, Spain: Author. Retrieved from http://osha.europa.eu/fop/bulgaria/en/publications/folder.2007-09-21.2042895509/efact18-en.pdf Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (2002). Risk perception and communication. In Detels, R., Mc Ewen, J., & Ommen, G. (Eds.), Oxford textbook of public health (pp.1105–1123). London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739 Google Scholar
Gabriel, J. (2009). Reducing needlestick and sharps injuries among healthcare workers. Nursing Standard. 23, 41–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/ns2009.02.23.22.41.c6777 Google Scholar
Gardner, G. T., & Gould, L. C. (1989). Public perception of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis, 9, 225–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1989.tb01243.x Google Scholar
Gershon, R. R. M., Pearson, J. M., Sherman, M. F., Samar, S. M., Canton, A. N., & Stone, P. W. (2009). The prevalence and risk factors for percutaneous injuries in registered nurses in the home health care sector. American Journal of Infection Control, 37, 525–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.10.022 Google Scholar
Goldstein, B. D. (2005). Advances in risk assessment and communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 141–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144410 Google Scholar
Harding, C. M., & Eiser, J. R. (1984). Characterising the perceived risks and benefits of some health issues. Risk Analysis, 4, 131–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1984.tb00942.x Google Scholar
Hogarth, R. M., Portell, M., Cuxart, A., & Kolev, G. I. (2011). Emotion and reason in everyday risk perception. Journal of Behavioral Decision, 24, 202–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.689 Google Scholar
Holmes, N., Lingard, H., Yesilyurt, Z., & De Munk, F. (1999). An exploratory study of meanings of risk control for long term and acute effect occupational health and safety risks in small business construction firms. Journal of Safety Research, 30, 251–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00020-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopcia, K., Dennerlein, J. T., Hashimoto, D., Orechia, T., & Sorensen, G. (2012). Occupational injuries for consecutive and cumulative shifts among hospital registered nurses and patient care associates: A case-control study. Workplace Health & Safety, 60, 437–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/21650799-20120917-39 Google Scholar
Jovic-Vranes, A., Jankovic, S., Vukovic, S., Vranes, B., & Miljus, D. (2006). Risk perception and attitudes towards HIV in Serbian health care workers. Occupational Medicine, 56, 275–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kql019 Google Scholar
Kobbeltvedt, T., Brun, W., & Laberg, J. C. (2004). Measuring and modeling risk in a naturalistic setting. Journal of Risk Research, 7, 789–810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1366987042000304854 Google Scholar
Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12, 215–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00669.x Google Scholar
Kraus, N. N., & Slovic, P. (1988). Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: Modeling individual and group perceptions within homogeneous hazard domains. Risk Analysis, 8, 435–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb00508.x Google Scholar
Langford, I. H., Marris, C., McDonald, A. L., Goldstein, H., Rasbash, J., & O'Riordan, T. (1999). Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modeling. Risk Analysis, 19, 675–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00437.x Google Scholar
Lee, D. H., Mehta, M. D., & James, P. D. (2003). Differences in the perception of blood transfusion risk between laypeople and physicians. Transfusion, 43, 772–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.2003.00401.x Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 Google Scholar
Marris, C., Langford, I. H., Saunderson, T., & O’Riordan, T. (1997). Exploring the “Psychometric paradigm”: Comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Analysis, 17, 303–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00868.x Google Scholar
McGonagle, A. K., & Kath, L. M. (2010). Work-safety tension, perceived risk, and worker injuries: A meso-mediational model. Journal of Safety Research, 41, 475–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2010.09.002 Google Scholar
Mereu, A., Sardu, C., Minerba, L., Sotgiu, A., & Contu, P. (2007). Participative risk communication in an industrial village in Sardinia. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61, 122–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043513 Google Scholar
Monk, T. H. (1998). Hours of work. In Stellman, J. M. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety (4 th Ed., pp. 18–19). Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Office.Google Scholar
Ngan, K., Drebit, S., Siow, S., Yu, S., Keen, D., & Alamgir, H. (2010). Risks and causes of musculoskeletal injuries among health care workers. Occupational Medicine, 60, 389–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqq052 Google Scholar
Portell, M., & Solé, M. D. (2001). Riesgo percibido: Un procedimiento de evaluación [The perception of risk: an evaluation procedure]. (NTP 578). Madrid, Spain: Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo.Google Scholar
Puy, A. (1995). Percepción social de los riesgos [Social perception of risks]. Madrid, Spain: Editorial MAPFRE.Google Scholar
Real, K. (2008). Information seeking and workplace safety: A field application of the risk perception attitude framework. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 339–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880802101763 Google Scholar
Rohrmann, B. (1999). Risk perception research - Review and documentation. (Studies in Risk Communication No. 68). Juelich, Germany: Research Center Juelich-MUT. Retrieved from http://www.fz-juelich.de/mut/hefte/heft_69.pdf Google Scholar
Rundmo, T. (1995). Perceived risk, safety status and job stress among injured and non-injured employees on offshore petroleum installations. Journal of Safety Research, 26, 87–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-4375(95)00008-E Google Scholar
Sadhra, S., Petts, J., McAlpine, S., Pattison, H., & MacRae, S. (2002). Workers' understanding of chemical risks: Electroplating case study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59, 689–695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.59.10.689 Google Scholar
Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24, 1289–1299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x Google Scholar
Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25, 211–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x Google Scholar
Sjöberg, L. (1999). Risk perception by the public and by experts: A dilemma in risk management. Human Ecology Review, 6, 1–9.Google Scholar
Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2002). The affect heuristic. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Intuitive Judgment: Heuristics and Biases (pp. 397–420). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In Schwing, R. & Albers, W. A. Jr. (Eds.), Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? (pp. 181–214). New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
Västfjäll, D., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2008). Affect, risk perception and future optimism after the tsunami disaster. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilburn, S. Q., & Eijkemans, G. (2004). Preventing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers: A WHO–ICN collaboration. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 10, 451–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2004.10.4.451 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wirth, O., & Sigurdsson, S. O. (2008). When workplace safety depends on behavior change: Topics for behavioral safety research. Journal of Safety Research, 39, 589–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.10.005 Google Scholar