Párraga, J (2005) Eficacia del programa I.R.I.S para reducir el Síndrome de Burnout y mejorar las disfunciones emocionales en profesionales sanitarios
UNIVERSIDAD TECNICA PARTICULAR DE LOJA CENTRO DE EDUCACION Y PSICOLOGIA
4. Claramente lo he pensado.
97
Some of the workers felt reluctant to volunteer information. This was overcome by carefully assuring them of confidentiality.
CHAPTER FOUR
97 RESULTS
A total of 318 respondents participated in this study. All the questionnaires administered to the respondents were retrieved, giving a response rate of 100%. Out of the 318 respondents, 268 (84.3%) were IVM staff, while 50 (15.7%) were ANAMMCO staff.
Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
Company
ANAMMCO 50 15.7
IVM 268 84.3
97 Sex
Male 308 96.9
Female 10 3.1
Age (years)
≤20 36 11.3
21-25 96 30.2
26-30 119 37.4
31-35 35 11.0
36-40 5 1.6
>40 27 8.5
Mean (SD) 27.88 (7.28)
Marital status
Single 229 72.0
Married 86 27.0
Widowed 2 0.6
Separated 1 0.3
Highest level of Education
No formal education 0 0
Primary education 0 0
Secondary education 299 94.0
Tertiary education 19 6.0
Ethnicity
Igbo 295 92.8
Yoruba 20 6.3
Hausa 2 0.6
Others 1 0.3
Religion
Christianity 314 98.7
Islam 3 0.9
African Traditional Religion 1 0.3
Duration of employment (yrs)
1-2 141 44.3
3-4 141 44.3
5-6 3 0.9
7-8 4 1.3
9-10 10 3.1
>10 19 6.0
Mean (SD) 3.62 (4.67)
Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. Out of the 318 respondents, 50 (15.7%) were workers in ANAMMCO, while 268 (84.3%) were workers in Innoson Vehicle Manufacturing company. There were 308 (96.9%) males and only 10 (3.1%) females. The commonest age group was the 26-30 years age group, 119 (37.4%) while the least common age group was the 36-40 years age group 5 (1.6%). The mean age was 27.88 years with a
97
standard deviation of ± 7.28 years. There were 229 (72.0%) single respondents, while 86 (27.0%) were married. Majority of the respondents had secondary education 299 (94.0%), while 19 (6.0%) had tertiary education. None of the respondents had no formal education. Majority of the respondents were from the Igbo ethnic group 295 (92.8%), followed by the Yoruba ethnic group 20 (6.3%), and then the Hausa ethnic group 2 (0.6%). Majority of the respondents were Christians 314 (98.7%). Only 3 (0.9%) were Moslems and 1 (0.3%) was practicing African Traditional Religion.
The proportion 141 (44.3%) have worked for 3 to 4 years. Only 3 (0.9%) respondents have worked for 5 to 6 years. The mean number of years of working in the companies was 3.62 years (± 4.07 years).
Table 1 continued: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents (continued)
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
97
Table 1 continued is a continuation of the socio-demographic characteristics of the workers. It shows the different sections the workers were working in. The body shop section had the highest number of workers 102 (32.1%), followed by the final finishing section 82 (25.8%), the paint/spray shop section 52 (16.4%), the chassis assembly 44 (13.8%), the auto electricals section 22 (6.9%), the rectification section 9 (2.8%), and finally the trimeline section 7 (2.2%). Table 2 also shows that all the workers work for 8 hours daily.
Table 2: Respondents’ knowledge of hazards in their workplace
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
Section (Department)
Body shop 102 32.1 Trimeline 7 2.2 Paint/Spray shop 52 16.4 Chassis assembly 44 13.8 Final finishing 82 25.8 Rectification 9 2.8 Auto electrical 22 6.9
Work hours (daily)
8 hours 318 100.0
97 Aware of hazards in workplace
Yes 304 95.6
No 14 4.4
Machine accidents 248 81.6 Metal dusts 184 60.5 Excessive noise 169 55.6 Gases & Fumes 166 54.6 Bad working positions 148 48.7 Electrocution 146 48.0 Excessive heat 116 38.2 Foreign body in the eye 87 28.6 Corrosives 65 21.4
Falling objects 55 18.1
Hot liquid 32 10.5
Slippery floor 29 9.5
Multiple Responses
Table 2 shows the respondents’ knowledge of hazards in their workplace. Among the respondents, 304 (95.6%) were aware of hazards in their workplace, while 14 (4.4%) were not aware of hazards in their workplace. The table also shows the proportions of the respondents who identified the different hazards in their work place. Among the 304 respondents that were aware of hazards in their workplace, majority (81.6%) identified machine accidents as a hazard in their workplace. Metal dusts was identified by 60.5%, while excessive noise was identified by 55.6%. Gases and Fumes, bad working positions, electrocution and excessive heat were identified by 54.6%, 48.7%, 48.0% and 38.2% respectively. Foreign body in the eye, corrosives, falling objects, hot liquid and slippery floor were identified by 28.6%, 21.4%, 18.1%, 10.5% and 9.5% respectively.
Occupational hazards workers identified in their workplace (N=304)
97
Table 3: Respondents’ knowledge of occupational illnesses/injuries that can occur in their workplace
97 Occupational illnesses/injuries that can occur in their workplace
Frequency (N=304) Percentage
Waist pain 244 76.7
Cut or laceration 203 63.8
Eye problems 201 63.2
Hearing problems 149 46.9
Respiratory problems 142 44.7
Sprain 123 38.7
Electrocution 90 28.3
Burns 76 23.9
Skin disease 21 6.6
Fracture 11 3.5
Lead poisoning 11 3.5
Cancers 10 3.1
Traumatic amputation of a digit 7 2.2
Multiple Responses
Table 3 shows the respondents’ knowledge of occupational illnesses/injuries that can occur in their workplace. The commonest occupational illness/injury identified by the respondents was waist pain (76.7%), followed by cut/laceration (63.8%), eye problems (63.2%), hearing problems (46.9%). Respiratory problems, sprain, electrocution, burns and skin disease were identified by 44.7%, 38.7%, 28.3%, 23.9% and 6.6% respectively. While fracture, lead poisoning, cancers, traumatic amputation of a digit were identified by 3.5%, 3.5%, 3.1% and 2.2% respectively.
Table 4: Respondents’ knowledge of measures that can be taken to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries in their workplace
97 Measures that can be taken to prevent
Occupational illnesses/injuries
Frequency (N =304) Percentage
Provision of medical/first aid services
247 81.3
Use of PPDs 239 78.6 Warning signs at strategic
locations
56 18.4
Pre-employment medical examinations
41 13.5
Periodic medical examinations 36 11.8 Good house keeping 28 9.2 Periodic trainings on
occupational safety & health
26 8.6
Isolation of dangerous areas 25 8.2 Periodic inspection of workplace 25 8.2 Substitution of harmful raw
materials with harmless ones
21 6.9
Multiple responses
Table 4 shows the knowledge of the respondents regarding measures that can be taken to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries in their workplace. Provision of medical/first aid services was the commonest measure identified by the respondents (81.3%), followed by the use of PPDs (78.6%).
Warning signs at strategic locations, pre-employment medical examinations, periodic medical examinations and good house keeping were identified by 56%, 41%, 36%, and 28% respectively.
Also periodic training on occupational safety and health, isolation of dangerous areas, periodic inspection of workplace and substitution of harmful raw materials with harmless ones were identified by 26%, 25%, 25%, and 21% respectively.
Table 5: Respondents’ knowledge of personal protective devices
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
97 Respondents who think the use of PPDs is necessary
Yes 318 100.0
No 0 0.0
PPDs the workers considered necessary in their workplace
Aprons/overalls 244 76.7
Eye goggles 241 75.8
Boots 238 74.8
Hand gloves 225 70.8
Face mask 183 57.5
Helmets 87 27.4
Ear plugs/muffs 61 19.2
Respirators 37 11.6
Multiple responses
Table 5 shows the respondents’ knowledge regarding Personal Protective Devices (PPDs). All the respondents (100.0%) believed that the use of PPDs was necessary. Majority of the respondents (76.7%) identified Apron/overall as a necessary PPD in their workplace. Eye goggles, boots, hand gloves and face masks were identified by 75.8%, 74.8%, 70.8% and 57.5% respectively. While, helmets, ear plugs/muffs, and respirators were identified by 27.4%, 19.2%, and 11.6%
respectively.
Table 6: Practice of preventive measures of occupational diseases by the respondents
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
97 Respondents that had
pre-employment examination
Yes 61 19.2
No 257 80.8
Medical examinations respondents had
Chest X-Ray 51 16.0
Blood tests 45 14.2
Urine tests 45 14.2
Physical examination 46 14.5
Respondents that went for periodic medical examination
Yes 182 57.2
No 136 42.8
Frequency of periodic medical examination(n=182)
Every 6 months 98 53.8
Only when you feel sick 50 27.5
Every 2 years 18 9.9
Yearly 16 8.9
Reasons for not having periodic medical examinations (n=136)
Lack of funds 78 57.4
Not necessary 58 42.6
Table 6 shows the practice of preventive measures by the respondents. Only 19.2% of the respondents underwent medical examination before they started working at the companies. Chest X-ray was done by 16.0% of the respondents. Blood tests were done by 14.2% of the workers.
Urine tests were done by 14.2% of the respondents. Physical examination was done on 14.5% of
97
the respondents. Among all the respondents, only 182 (57.2%) agreed that they did go for periodic medical examination. Among the 182 respondents that went for periodic medical examinations, 53.8% went for periodic medical examinations every 6 months, 27.5% went for periodic medical examination only when they fell sick, 9.9% went for periodic medical examination every 2 years, while 8.9% went for periodic medical examination yearly. Among the 136 respondents who did not go for periodic medical examinations, 57.45% gave their reason as lack of funds, while 42.6%
felt it was not necessary.
97
Table 7: Practice of occupational health and safety by the companies
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
Respondents whose employer organizes occupational health & safety training programs for newly employed workers
Yes 83 26.1
No 235 73.9
Respondents whose employer organizes periodic occupational safety & health training programs for workers
Yes 92 28.9
No 226 71.1
Frequency of periodic trainings (n=92)
Yearly 40 43.5
Every two years 12 13.0
Every three years 11 12.0
Irregularly 29 31.5
Table 7 shows the practice of occupational health and safety by the companies. Two hundred and thirty five (73.9%) of the respondents reported that their employer did not organize occupational safety and health training for newly employed workers, while 26.1% reported that their employer organized occupational health and safety training programme for newly employed workers. Ninety two (28.9%) of the respondents reported that their employer organized periodic trainings for workers, while 71.1% reported that their employer did not organize periodic trainings. Among the 92 respondents who reported that their employer organized periodic trainings, 43.5% reported that the trainings were done yearly, while 13.0% 12.0% and 31.5% reported that the trainings were done every two years, every three years and irregularly, respectively.
97
Table 8: Availability and use of personal protective devices
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
Respondents provided PPDs in their workplace
Yes 318 100.0
No 0 0.0
PPDs that were provided (multiples responses)
Hand gloves 266 83.6
Eye goggles 220 69.2
Face masks 200 62.9
Apron/overall 107 33.6
Boots 105 33.0
Helmets 72 22.6
Ear plugs/muffs 29 9.1
Respirator 5 1.6
Others 2 0.6
Respondents that were trained on the use of PPDs
Yes 122 38.4
No 196 61.6
Respondents who made use of the PPDs
Yes 307 96.5
No 11 3.5
Frequency of use of PPDs (n=307)
Always 46 14.9
Occasionally 129 42.0
Rarely 132 43.0
Reasons for not using PPDs (n=11)
The PPDs are not necessary 1 9.1
The PPDs make me feel hot 10 90.9
Respondents who thought they needed PPDs but the PPDs were not provided
Yes 12 3.8
No 306 96.2
PPDs that were not provided (n=12)
Apron 1 8.3
Boots 11 91.7
97
Table 8 shows availability and use of PPDs by the respondents. All the respondents (100.0%) agreed that they were provided PPDs in their workplace. Two hundred and sixty six (83.6%) of the respondents reported that hand gloves were provided while 62.2% reported that eye goggles were provided. Aprons/overalls, boots, helmets, ear plugs and respirators were reported provided by 33.6%, 33.0%, 22.6%, 9.1% and 1.6% respectively.
Table 8 also shows that 38.4% of respondents were trained on the use of PPDs. Three hundred and seven (96.5%) of the respondents made use of the PPDs. Out of these 307 respondents, 43.0% used the PPDs rarely, 42.0% used the PPDs occasionally, while 14.9% used the PPDs always. Among the 11 respondents who did not make use of PPDs, 10 (90.9%) of them said the PPDs made them feel hot, while 9.1% said that the PPDs were not necessary.
Table 9: Respondents’ opinion about modification of PPDs
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
Respondents who wanted some PPDs modified to suit their work
Yes 87 27.4
No 231 72.6
PPDs respondents felt should be modified (multiple responses) (n=87)
Apron/overall 61 70.1
Boots 24 27.6
Eye goggles 20 23.0
Ear plugs/muffs 14 16.1
Helmets 5 5.7
Gloves 5 5.7
Face mask 3 3.4
97
Table 9 shows respondents’ opinion about modification of PPDs. Majority of the respondents 231 (73.6%) did not feel that the PPDs needed modification to suit them, while 87 (27.4%) felt there were PPDs that needed to be modified.
Among the 87 respondents who desired some PPDs modified, 70.1% desired the aprons/overalls modified, while 27.6% desired the boots modified. Other PPDs some respondents desired modified were eye goggles (23.0%), ear plugs/muffs (16.1%), helmets (5.7%), gloves (5.7%), face mask (3.4%).
Table 10: Occupational illnesses/injuries respondents have experienced as individuals
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
Respondents that have had illness/injury As a result of their work
Yes 275 86.5
No 43 13.5
Illnesses/injuries respondents have experienced (multiple responses) (n=275)
Cuts/lacerations 210 76.4
Waist pain 174 63.3
Eye problems 163 59.3
Sprain 123 44.7
Respiratory problems 114 41.5
Hearing problems 91 33.1
Burns 89 32.4
Electrocution 5 1.8
97
Table 10 shows the occupational illnesses/injuries the respondents have experienced. Two hundred and seventy five respondents have experienced occupational illnesses/injuries. Out of the 275 respondents, 76.4% have had cuts/lacerations, 63.3% have had waist pain, 59.3% have had eye problems, while 44.7% have had sprains. Respiratory problems, hearing problems, burns and electrocution were reported by 41.5%, 33.1%, 32.4% and 1.8% respectively.
Table 11: Respondents’ opinion about hazards that caused their occupational illnesses/injuries
Respondents’ opinion about hazards that caused their illnesses/injuries
Frequency (N =275) Percentage
Working positions 213 77.5
Exposure to machines 211 76.7
Over exertion 150 54.5
Harmful dusts/fumes 148 53.8
Exposure to corrosives 148 53.8
Poor lighting 11 4.0
Obsolete tools 1 0.4
Multiple responses
Table 11 shows the respondents’ opinion about the hazards that caused their occupational illnesses/injuries. The commonest hazard reported by the respondents was working positions (77.5%), followed by exposure to machines (76.7%), over exertion (54.5%), and harmful dusts/fumes (53.8%). Exposure to corrosives, poor lighting and obsolete tools were reported by 58.8%, 4.0% and 0.4% respectively.
97
Table 12: Occupational illnesses/injuries workers had witnessed in their workplace occupational illnesses/injuries
that have occurred in the workplace
Frequency (N =318) Percentage
Waist pain 263 82.7
Cuts/lacerations 236 74.2
Eye problems 201 63.2
Respiratory problems 180 56.6
Sprain 151 47.5
Hearing problems 144 45.3
Burns 121 38.1
Electrocution 13 4.1
Fracture 3 0.9
Multiple responses
Table 12 shows the occupational illnesses/injuries that the respondents have witnessed in their workplace. The occupational illnesses/injuries they have witnessed included: waist pain (82.7%), cuts/lacerations (74.2%), eye problems (63.2%), respiratory problems (56.6%) and sprain (47.5%).
While hearing problems, burns, electrocution and fractures were witnessed by 45.3%, 38.1%, 4.1%
and 0.9% respectively.
97
Table 13: Occupational health measures taken by companies as reported by the respondents
Variables Frequency (N =318) Percentage
Respondents opinion regarding whether their employer was taking measures to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries
Yes 169 53.1 No 149 46.9 Measures taken by the companies (n=169)
Provision of medical/first aid services
123
72.8
Warning signs 63 37.3 Provision of PPDs 59 34.9 Periodic medical exam 45 26.6 Pre employment medical exam 41 24.3 Enforcement of use of PPDs 40 23.7
Periodic workplace inspection 38 22.5
Good house keeping Periodic training on OSH Isolation of dangerous areas
36 34 31
21.3 20.1 18.3
Multiple responses
Table 13 shows the occupational safety and health measures taken by the companies as reported by the respondents. Table 13 shows that 169 (53.1%) of the respondents felt that their employer was taking measures to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries, while 149 (46.9%) felt that their employer was not taking measures to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries. The commonest measure identified by the workers was provision of medical/first aid services (72.8%), followed by warning signs (37.3%), provision of PPDs (34.9%), periodic medical examination (24.3%) and enforcement of the use of PPDs (23.7%). Other safety measure identified were periodic workplace
97
inspection (22.5%), good house keeping (21.3%), periodic training on occupational safety and health (20.1%) and isolation of dangerous areas (18.3%).
97
Table 14: Association between respondents’ age and knowledge of hazards in their workplace.
Variables Age (years) X2 p-value Frequency (%)
≤ 25 years >25 years Total Respondents that were
aware of hazards in their workplace
Yes 121 (39.8) 183 (60.2) 304 (100.0) 8.285 0.00
No 11 (78.6) 3 (21.4) 14 (100.0)
Occupational hazards workers identified in their workplace (N=304)
Machine accidents 97 (39.1) 151(60.9) 248 (100.0) *2.146 0.06
Metal dusts 58 (31.5) 126 (68.5) 184 (100.0)
Excessive noise 38 (22.5) 131 (77.5) 169 (100.0) Gases & fumes 47(28.3) 119 (71.7) 166 (100.0) Bad working positions 46 (31.1) 102 (68.9) 148 (100.0)
Electrocution 52 (35.6) 94 (64.4) 146 (100.0)
Excessive heat 39 (33.6) 77 (66.4) 116 (100.0)
Foreign body in the eye 32 (36.8) 55 (63.2) 87 (100.0)
Corrosives 21 (32.3) 44 (67.7) 65 (100.0)
Falling objects 0 (0.0) 55 (100.0) 55 (100.0)
Hot liquid 1 (3.1) 31 (96.9) 32 (100.0)
Slippery floor 0 (0.0) 29 (100.0) 29 (100.0)
*Likelihood ratio used when >20% cells have expected values <5.
Statistically significant
Table 14 shows the association between the respondents’ age and their knowledge of hazards in their workplace. A higher proportion of the respondents who were aware of hazards in their workplace were >25 years of age 183 (60.2%) compared with those who were ≤25 years of age.
97
This difference was statistically significant (X2 = 8.285, p = 0.00). However there was no statistically significant difference in the type of hazards identified by the respondents in the different age groups.
Table 15: Association between respondents’ age and their knowledge of occupational illnesses/injuries that can occur in their workplace.
Occupational illnesses/ injuries that can occur in their workplace
Age (years) X2 p-value Frequency (%)
≤25 years >25 years Total
Waist pain 94 (38.5%) 150 (61.5%) 244 (100.0) *2.111 0.06
cut or laceration 74 (36.5) 129 (63.5) 203 (100.0)
Eye problems 77 (38.3) 124 (61.7) 201(100.0)
Hearing problems 47 (33.1) 102 (68.5) 149 (100.0) Respiratory problems 47 (33.1) 95 (66.9) 142 (100.0)
Sprain 48 (39.0) 75 (61.0) 123 (100.0)
Electrocution 29 (32.2) 61 (67.8) 90 (100.0)
Burns 14 (18.4) 62 (81.6) 76 (100.0)
Skin disease 0 (0.0) 21 (100.0) 21 (100.0)
Fracture 1 (9.1) 10 (90.9) 11 (100.0)
Lead poisoning 0 (0.0) 11 (100.0) 11 (100.0)
Cancers 0 (0.0) 10 (100.0) 10 (100.0)
Traumatic amputation of a digit 0 (0.0) 7 (100.0) 7 (100.0) Likelihood ratio used when >20% of cells have expected value <5
Table 15 shows the association between the respondents’ age and their knowledge of occupational illnesses/injuries that can occur in their workplace. A higher proportion of the respondents that identified each hazard was >25 years of age compared with those that were ≤25 years of age.
However the difference was not statistically significant (X2 = 2.111, p = 0.06).
97
Table 16: Association between respondents’ age and knowledge of measures that can be taken to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries in their workplace.
Measures that can be taken to prevent
occupational illnesses/injuries
Age (years) X2 p-value Frequency (%)
≤25 years >25 years Total Provision of medical/first aid
services
82 (33.2) 165 (66.8) 247 (100.0) 2.490 0.09
Use of PPDs 99 (41.4) 140 (58.6) 239 (100.0)
Warning signs at strategic locations
14 (25.0) 42 (75.0) 56 (100.0) Pre-employment medical
examinations
4 (9.8) 37 (90.2) 41 (100.0) Periodic medical examination 6 (16.7) 30 (83.3) 36 (100.0) Good house keeping 4 914.30 24 (85.7) 28 (100.0) Periodic trainings on OSH 4 (15.4) 22 (84.6) 26 (100.0) Isolation of dangerous areas 5 (20.0) 20 (80.0) 25 (100.0) Periodic inspection of workplace 5 (20.0) 20 (80.0) 25 (100.0) Substitution of harmful raw
materials with harmless ones
4 (19.0) 17 981.0) 21 (100.0)
Table 16 shows the association between respondents’ age and their knowledge of measures that can be taken to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries in their workplace. A higher proportion of the respondents who identified preventive measures were >25 years of age compared with those that were ≤25 years of age. However the difference was not statistically significant (X2 = 2.490, p
= 0.09).
97
Table 17: Association between respondents’ age and their knowledge of PPDs PPDs workers considered
necessary in their workplace
Age (years) X2 p-value Frequency (%)
≤25 years >25 years Total
Aprons/overalls 85 (34.8) 159 (65.2) 244 (100.00 2.940 0.09
Eye goggles 100 941.5) 141 (58.5) 241 (100.0)
Boots 75 (31.5) 163 (68.5) 238 (100.0)
Hand gloves 71 (31.6) 154 (68.4) 225 (100.0)
Face mask 75 (41.0) 108 (59.0) 183 (100.0)
Helmets 41 (47.1) 46 (52.9) 87 (100.0)
Ear plugs/muffs 13 (21.3) 48 (78.7) 61 (100.0)
Respirators 2 95.4) 35 (94.6) 37 (100.0)
Table 17 shows the association between respondents’ age and their knowledge of PPDs. A higher proportion of the respondents that identified PPDs were >25 years of age compared with those that were ≤25 years of age. However the difference was not statistically significant (X2 = 2.940, p = 0.09).
97
Table 18: Association between respondents’ age and the practice of preventive measures Variable Age (years) X2 p-value
Frequency (%)
≤25 years >25 years Total Respondents that had
pre-employment examination
Yes 18 (29.5) 43 (70.5) 61 (100.0) 4.480 0.03
No 114 (44.4) 143 (55.6) 257 (100.0)
Medical examinations respondents had
Chest x-ray 8 (15.7) 43 (84.3) 51 (100.0) 1.590 0.21
Blood tests 6 (13.3) 39 (86.7) 45 (100.0)
Urine tests 6 (13.3) 39 (86.7) 45 (100.0)
Physical examination 17 (37.0) 29 (63.0) 46 (100.0) Respondents that went for periodic
medical examination
Yes 88 (48.4) 94 (51.6) 182 (100.0) 8.206 0.00
No 44 (32.4) 92 (67.6) 136 (100.0)
Frequency of periodic medical examination (n=182)
Every 6 months 37 (37.8) 61 (62.2) 98 (100.0) 24.036 0.00
Only when you feel sick 24 (48.0) 26 (52.0) 50 (100.0)
Every 2 years 18 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 18 (100.0)
Yearly 24 (48.0) 26 (52.0) 50 (100.0)
Reasons for not having periodic medical examination (n=136)
Lack of funds 23 (29.5) 55 (70.5) 78 (100.0) 0.686 0.41
Not necessary 21 (36.2) 37 (63.8) 58 (100.0)
Statistically significant
Table 18 shows the association between respondents’ age and their practice of preventive measures. A higher proportion of the respondents that had pre-employment examination were >25
97
years of age compared with those that were ≤25 years of age. However the difference was not statistically significant (X2 = 1.590, p = 0.21). Among the respondents that went for periodic medical examination, a higher proportion were >25 years of age 94 (51.6%), compared with those who were ≤25 years of age 88 (48.4%). This difference was statistically significant (X2 = 8.206, p
= 0.00). There was a statistically significant difference in the frequency of periodic medical examination between the age groups (X2 = 24.036, p = 0.00). However there was no statistically significant difference between the age groups as regards the reasons for not having periodic medical examinations (X2 = 0.686, p = 0.41).
97
Table 19: Association between respondents’ marital status and knowledge of hazards in their workplace
Variable Marital status X2 p-value
Frequency (%) Never
married Others Total Respondents that were are of
hazards in their workplace
Yes 227 (74.7) 77 (25.3) 304 (100.0) 24.214 0.00
No 2 (14.3) 12 (85.7) 14 (100.0)
Occupational hazards workers identified in their workplace (n=304)
Machine accidents 196 (79.0) 52 (21.0) 248 (100.0) 0.330 0.57
Metal dusts 156 (84.8) 28 (15.2) 184 (100.0)
Excessive noise 137 (81.1) 32 (18.9) 169 (100.0)
Gases & fumes 134 (80.7) 32 (19.3) 166 (100.0) Bad working positions 127 (85.8) 21 (14.2) 148 (100.0)
Electrocution 126 (86.3) 20 (13.7) 146 (100.0)
Excessive heat 85 (73.3) 31 (26.7) 116 (100.0)
Foreign body in the eye 67 (77.0) 20 (23.0) 87 (100.0)
Corrosives 44 (67.7) 21 (32.3) 65 (100.0)
Falling objects 45 (81.8) 10 (18.2) 55 (100.0)
Hot liquid 24 (75.0) 8 (25.0) 32 (100.0)
Slippery floor 22 (75.9) 7 (24.1) 29 (100.0)
Statistically significant
Table 19 shows the association between the respondents’ marital status and their knowledge of hazards in their workplace. Among the respondents who were aware of the hazards, a higher
97
proportion were never married 227 (74.7%), compared with the other marital groups 77 (25.3%).
This difference was statistically significant (X2 = 24.214, p = 0.00). However there was no statistically significant difference in the types of hazards the respondents in the different marital groups identified. (X2 = 0.33, p = 0.57).
Table 20: Association between respondents’ marital status and knowledge of occupational illnesses/injuries that can occur in their workplace
Occupational illnesses/injuries that can occur in their workplace
Marital status X2 p-value Frequency (%)
Never
married Others
Total
Waist pain 166 (68.9) 76 (31.1) 244 (100.0) 1.590 0.21
Cut/laceration 162 (79.8) 41 (20.2) 203 (100.0)
Eye problems 177 (88.1) 24 (11.9) 201 (100.0)
Hearing problems 121 (81.2) 28 (18.8) 149 (100.0) Respiratory problems 113 (79.6) 29 (20.4) 142 (100.0)
Sprain 103 (83.7) 20 (16.3) 123 (100.0)
Electrocution 71 (78.9) 19 (21.1) 90 (100.0)
Burns 59 (77.6) 17 (22.4) 76 (100.0)
Skin disease 12 (57.1) 9 (42.9) 21 (100.0)
Fracture 0 (0.0) 11 (100.0) 11 (100.0)
Lead poisoning 1 (9.1) 10 (90.9) 11 (100.0)
Cancers 1 (10.0) 9 (90.0) 10 (100.0)
Traumatic amputation of a digit 0 (0.0) 7 (100.0) 7 (100.0)
97
Table 20 shows the association between the marital status of the respondents and their knowledge of occupational illnesses/injuries that can occur in their workplace. A greater proportion of the respondents that identified the first nine occupational illnesses/injuries were never married, compared with other marital groups. Also the greater proportion of those that identified the remaining four occupational illnesses/injuries were of the other marital groups compared with those that were never married. However these differences were not statistically significant (X2 = 1.59, p = 0.00).
Table 21: Association between respondents’ marital status and their knowledge of measures to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries
Measures that can be taken to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries
Marital status X2 p-value Frequency (%)
Never
married Others Total
Provision of medical/first aid services 194 (78.5) 53 (21.5) 247 (100.0) 0.300 0.58
Use of PPDs 158 (66.1) 81 (33.9) 239 (100.0)
97
Warning signs at strategic locations 20 (35.7) 36 (64.3) 56 (100.0) Pre-employment medical examinations 9 (22.0) 32 (78.0) 41 (100.0)
Good house keeping 6 (21.4) 22 (78.6) 28 (100.0)
Periodic trainings on OSH 6 (23.1) 20 (76.9) 26 (100.0) Isolation of dangerous areas 10 (40.0) 15 (60.0) 25 (100.0) Periodic inspection of workplace 11 (44.0) 14 (56.0) 25 (100.0) Substitution of harmful raw materials
with harmless ones
7 (33.3) 14 (66.7) 21 (100.0)
Table 21 shows the association between respondents’ marital status and their knowledge of measures to prevent occupational illnesses/injuries. A greater proportion of the respondents that identified provision of medical/first aid services were never married compared with the other marital groups. Also a greater proportion of the respondents who identified the use of PPDs were never married compared with those who were married. For each of the remaining measures identified, a greater proportion of the respondents that identified each measure was of the other marital groups compared with the never married group. However the differences were not statistically significant (X2 = 0.300 p = 0.58).
97
Table 22: Association between respondents’ marital status and knowledge of PPDs PPDs workers considered
necessary in their workplace
Marital status X2 p-value Frequency (%)
Never
married Others Total
Aprons/overalls 190 (77.9) 54 (22.1) 244 (100.0) 1.950 0.16
Eye goggles 198 (82.2) 43 (17.8) 241 (100.0)
Boots 170 (71.4) 68 (28.6) 238 (100.0)
Hand gloves 183 (81.3) 42 (18.7) 225 (100.0)
Face mask 145 (79.2) 38 (20.8) 183 (100.0)
Helmets 64 (73.6) 23 (26.4) 61 (100.0)
Ear plugs/muffs 36 (59.0) 25 (41.0) 61 (100.0)
Respirators 14 (37.8) 23 (62.2) 37 (100.0)
Table 22 shows the association between respondents’ marital status and their knowledge of PPDs.
For each of the PPDs identified, a greater proportion of the respondents were never married.
However the difference was not statistically significant (X2 = 1.950, p = 0.16).
97
Table 23: Association between respondents’ marital status and the practice of preventive measures
Variable Marital status X2 p-value Frequency
Never married Others Total Respondents that had
pre-employment examination
Yes 27 (44.3) 34 (55.7) 61 (100.0) 28.839 0.00
No 202 (78.6) 55 (21.4) 257 (100.0)
Medical examinations respondents had
Chest x-ray 17 (33.3) 34 (66.7) 51 (100.0) 0.370 0.55
Blood tests 11 (24.4) 34 (75.6) 45 (100.0)
Urine tests 11 (24.4) 34 (75.6) 45 (100.0)
Physical examinations 22 (47.8) 24 (52.2) 46 (100.0) Respondents that went for
periodic medical examinations
Yes 117 (64.3) 65 (35.7) 182 (100.0) 12.607 0.00
No 112 (82.4) 24 (17.6) 136 (100.0)
Frequency of periodic medical examinations (n=182)
Every 6 months 80 (81.6) 18 (18.4) 98 (100.0) 66.692 0.00 Only when you feel sick 19 (38.0) 31 (62.0) 50 (100.0)
Every 2 years 18 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 18 (100.0)
Yearly 0 (0.0) 16 (100.0) 16 (100.0)
Reasons for not having periodic medical examinations
Lack of funds 78 (100.00 0 (0.0) 78 (100.0) 39.192 0.00
97
Not necessary 34 (58.6) 24 (41.4) 58 (100.0)
Statistically significant
Table 23 shows the association between the respondents’ marital status and their practice of preventive measures. Among the respondents that had pre-employment examination, a greater proportion were among the other marital groups 34 (55.7%) compared with those who were never married 27 (44.3%). The difference was statistically significant (X2 = 28.839, p = 0.00). A greater proportion of the respondents who had each of the different types of medical examinations belong to the other marital groups compared with those who were never married. But this difference was not statistically significant (X2 = 0.370, p = 0.55). A greater proportion of the respondents that went for periodic medical examinations were never married 117 (64.3), compared with the other marital groups 65 (35.7%). This difference was statistically significant (X2 = 12.607, p = 0.00).
Also there was a statistically significant difference in the frequency of periodic medical examinations between the two groups of marital status (X2 = 66.692, p = 0.00) and there was also a statistically significant difference in the reasons for not having periodic medical examinations between the two groups of marital status (X2 = 39.192, p = 0.00).
97
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
OBSERVATIONAL CHECKLIST RESULT
Using the observational checklist (appendix III), the findings at the production department of Innoson vehicle manufacturing company (presented according to sub headings in the checklist) were as follows:
FIRST AID: There were no first aid kits. There were no eye wash bottles. There were no eyewash stations.
MACHINE SAFETY: It was observed that all points of operation, points of contact and other moving parts and wiring were adequately guarded. The workers were not wearing appropriate personal protective equipments. Some workers were wearing jewellery while operating machinery.
Machines with hot surfaces were appropriately, labeled. There was adequate space in the work stations.
FIRE EXTINGUISHERS: Fire extinguishers were available. They were properly marked and easily accessible. Also the fire extinguisher locations were properly marked.
EVACUATION PROCEDURES: Exit doors were clearly marked and illuminated. Exit doors and paths leading to exits were free of obstructions.
97
ELECTRICAL SAFETY: It was observed that the power cords were free of tears, but some electrical outlets, junction boxes and other electrical components were not properly covered. Also power cords were not kept out of the walkway (some power cords were seen along the walkway).
HOUSE KEEPING: It was observed that the work areas were clean and organized. The walkways and stairways were free of obstructions. The refuse bins were not overflowing. Materials were neatly stored and there was adequate lighting in the work areas.
OBSERVATIONAL CHECKLIST FINDINGS AT ANAMMCO
FIRST AID: It was observed that there were first aid kits and they were well stocked. There were eyewash bottles and they were adequately filled. There were eyewash stations and they were adequately maintained.
MACHINE SAFETY: It was observed that all points of operation, points of contact and other moving parts and wiring were adequately guarded. The workers were wearing appropriate personal protective equipments when operating machinery. Also the workers were not wearing jewelry or loose fitting clothing while operating machinery. Machines with “hot surfaces” were appropriately labeled and there was adequate space in the work stations.
FIRE EXTINGUISHERS: There were fire extinguishers. The fire extinguishers were properly marked and easily accessible. Also the fire extinguisher locations were properly marked.
EVACUATION PROCEDURES: Exit doors were clearly marked and illuminated. Exit doors and paths leading to exits were free of obstructions.