The threat of noise-induced hearing loss is a serious concern for many workers. This study explores use of the transtheoretical model as a framework for defining stages of workers' acceptance of hearing protection devices. A secondary analysis was performed using a cross-section of data from a randomized, controlled clinical trial of an intervention to increase use of hearing protection. Use of hearing protection devices was well distributed across the theorized stages of change. Chi-square analysis and analysis of variance revealed significant differences between stages for the variables studied. Discrete stages of hearing protection device use can be identified, laying the foundation for further work investigating use of the transtheoretical model for promoting hearing protection device use. The model can provide a framework for tailoring interventions and evaluating their effects. With further development of the transtheoretical model, nurses may be able to easily identify workers' readiness to use hearing protection devices and tailor training toward that goal.
References
1.
BergerE. A. (2000). Hearing protection: Dual protection. Occupational Health and Safety, 69(10), 98–102.
2.
BrinkL. L.TalbottE. O.BurksJ. A.PalmerC. V. (2002). Changes over time in audiometric thresholds in a group of automobile stamping and assembly workers with a hearing conservation program. AIHA Journal, 63(4), 482–487.
3.
ConoverW. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
4.
DearT. A. (1998). Updating damage risk criteria to include performance under workplace noise regulations. Journal of Occupational Hearing Loss, 1(1), 61–66.
5.
DiClementeC. C.ProchaskaJ. O. (1998). Toward a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change: Stages of change and addictive behaviors. In MillerW. R.HeatherN. (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors (2nd ed., pp. 3–24). New York: Plenum.
6.
EakinB.BradyJ.LuskS. L. (2001). Creating a tailored, multimedia, computer-based intervention. Computers in Nursing, 19(5), 152–160.
7.
GoldenharL. M.SchulteP. A. (1994). Intervention research in occupational health and safety. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 36(7), 763–775.
8.
HerseyJ. C.CollinsJ. W.GershonR.OwenB. (1996). Methodologic issues in intervention research: Health care. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29(4), 412–417.
9.
KalampakornS. (2000). Stages of construction workers' use of hearing protection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
10.
LevyB.WegmanD. H. (2000). Preventing occupational disease and injury. In LevyB.WegmanD. H. (Eds.), Occupational health: Recognizing and preventing work-related disease and injury (4th ed., pp. 123–142). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
11.
LuskS. L.RonisD. L.BaerL. M. (1997). Gender differences in blue collar workers' use of hearing protection. Women & Health, 25(4), 69–89.
12.
LuskS. L.RonisD. L.HoganM. M. (1997). Test of the health promotion model as a causal model for construction workers' use of hearing protection. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(3), 183–194.
13.
LuskS. L.RonisD. L.KazanisA. S.EakinB. L.HongO.RaymondD. M. (2003). Effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase factory workers' use of hearing protection. Nursing Research, 52(5), 289–295.
14.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH]. (1996). Preventing occupational hearing loss: A practical guide (DHHS Publication No. 96-110). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH]. (1998). Criteria for a recommended standard: Occupational noise exposure (DHHS Publication No. 98-126). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH]. (1999). Emerging trends and technologies: New directions in theories about self-protective behavior. Retrieved January 6, 2003, from www.cdc.gov/niosh/96-110p.html.
17.
Occupational Noise Exposure; Hearing Conservation Amendment; Final Rule, 48 Fed. Reg. 9,738 (Mar. 8, 1983) (codified at 29 C.F.R. 1910).
18.
PaganoM.GauvreauK. (2000). Principles of biostatistics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
19.
ProchaskaJ. O.DiClementeC. C. (1983). Stages and process of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395.
20.
ProchaskaJ. O.DiClementeC. C.NorcrossJ. C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to the addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102–1114.
21.
ProchaskaJ. O.ReddingC. A.EversK. E. (2002). The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In GlanzK.Marcus-LewisF. M.RimerB. K. (Eds.), Health behavior and health education (3rd ed., pp. 99–120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
ReedG. R.VelicerW. F.ProchaskaJ. O.RossiJ. S.MarcusB. H. (1997). What makes a good staging algorithm: Examples from regular exercise. The Science of Health Promotion, 12(1), 57–66.
23.
RogersB. (2003). Workers as clients: Health assessment and surveillance. In RogersB. (Ed.), Occupational and environmental health nursing: Concepts and practice (2nd ed., pp. 295–325). Philadelphia: Saunders.
24.
SidaniS.BradenC. J. (1998). Evaluating nursing interventions: A theory-driven approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
StewartD. W. (1986). Secondary research: Information sources and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
VelicerW. F.ProchaskaJ. O.FavaJ. L.NormanG. J.ReddingC. A. (1998). Smoking cessation and stress management: Applications of the transtheoretical model of behavior change. Homeostasis, 38(5–6), 216–233.
27.
WaltzC. F.StricklandO. L.LenzE. R. (1991). Measurement in nursing research. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
