Premium
Keeping workers safe: Does provision of personal protective equipment match supervisor risk perceptions?
Author(s) -
Clouser Jessica M.,
Swanberg Jennifer E.,
Bundy Henry
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
american journal of industrial medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.7
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1097-0274
pISSN - 0271-3586
DOI - 10.1002/ajim.22464
Subject(s) - personal protective equipment , medicine , risk perception , perception , occupational safety and health , context (archaeology) , risk management , environmental health , work (physics) , business , psychology , pathology , paleontology , disease , finance , covid-19 , neuroscience , infectious disease (medical specialty) , biology , mechanical engineering , engineering
Background Although farm management may understand agriculture's risks, they may not provide personal protective equipment (PPE). This study describes thoroughbred farm management's risk perceptions, provision of PPE, and factors that influence its provision. Methods Thirty‐five representatives from 26 farms participated in a 1–4hr semi‐structured interview covering perceived risks associated with horse work and perspectives and provision of PPE. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed, entered into ATLAS.ti, and analyzed by three coders. Results Management cited horse‐related tasks as most dangerous, yet horse‐related PPE as least provided because of 1) differences in farm context, 2) the belief that workers were most important agents in their safety, 3) lack of confidence in its effectiveness, and 4) the perception that risk could never be eliminated. Conclusions PPE provision was limited by management's poor perceptions of its efficacy relative to other factors. Future research should explore workers' perceptions and PPE's effectiveness in averting horse‐related injury. Am. J. Ind. Med. 58:886–896, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.