Application of an appearance-based intervention to improve sun protection outcomes of outdoor workers in Queensland, Australia

Outdoor workers are exposed to high levels of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and may thus be at greater risk to experience UVR-related health effects such as skin cancer, sun burn, and cataracts. A number of intervention trials (n=14) have aimed to improve outdoor workers’ work-related sun protection cognitions and behaviours. Only one study however has reported the use of UV-photography as part of a multi-component intervention. This study was performed in the USA and showed long-term (12 months) improvements in work-related sun protection behaviours. Intervention effects of the other studies have varied greatly, depending on the population studied, intervention applied, and measurement of effect. Previous studies have not assessed whether: - Interventions are similarly effective for workers in stringent and less stringent policy organisations; - Policy effect is translated into workers’ leisure time protection; - Implemented interventions are effective in the long-term; - The facial UV-photograph technique is effective in Australian male outdoor workers without a large additional intervention package, and; - Such interventions will also affect workers’ leisure time sun-related cognitions and behaviours. Therefore, the present Protection of Outdoor Workers from Environmental Radiation [POWER]-study aimed to fill these gaps and had the objectives of: a) assessing outdoor workers’ sun-related cognitions and behaviours at work and during leisure time in stringent and less stringent sun protection policy environments; b) assessing the effect of an appearance-based intervention on workers’ risk perceptions, intentions and behaviours over time; c) assessing whether the intervention was equally effective within the two policy settings; and d) assessing the immediate post-intervention effect. Effectiveness was described in terms of changes in sun-related risk perceptions and intentions (as these factors were shown to be main precursors of behaviour change in many health promotion theories) and behaviour. The study purposefully selected and recruited two organisations with a large outdoor worker contingent in Queensland, Australia within a 40 kilometre radius of Brisbane. The two organisations differed in the stringency of implementation and reinforcement of their organisational sun protection policy. Data were collected from 154 male predominantly Australian born outdoor workers with an average age of 37 years and predominantly medium to fair skin (83%). Sun-related cognitions and behaviours of workers were assessed using self-report questionnaires at baseline and six to twelve months later. Variation in follow-up time was due to a time difference in the recruitment of the two organisations. Participants within each organisation were assigned to an intervention or control group. The intervention group participants received a one-off personalised Skin Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [SCRAT]-letter and a facial UV-photograph with detailed verbal information. This was followed by an immediate post-intervention questionnaire within three months of the start of the study. The control group only received the baseline and follow-up questionnaire. Data were analysed using a variety of techniques including: descriptive analyses, parametric and non-parametric tests, and generalised estimating equations. A 15% proportional difference observed was deemed of clinical significance, with the addition of reported statistical significance (p<0.05) where applicable. Objective 1: Assess and compare the current sun-related risk perceptions, intentions, behaviours, and policy awareness of outdoor workers in stringent and less stringent sun protection policy settings. Workers within the two organisations (stringent n=89 and less stringent n=65) were similar in their knowledge about skin cancer, self efficacy, attitudes, and social norms regarding sun protection at work and during leisure time. Participants were predominantly in favour of sun protection. Results highlighted that compared to workers in a less stringent policy organisation working for an organisation with stringent sun protection policies and practices resulted in more desirable sun protection intentions (less willing to tan p=0.03) ; actual behaviours at work (sufficient use of upper and lower body protection, headgear, and sunglasses (p<0.001 for all comparisons), and greater policy awareness (awareness of repercussions if Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was not used, p<0.001)). However the effect of the work-related sun protection policy was found not to extend to leisure time sun protection. Objective 2: Compare changes in sun-related risk perceptions, intentions, and behaviours between the intervention and control group. The effect of the intervention was minimal and mainly resulted in a clinically significant reduction in work-related self-perceived risk of developing skin cancer in the intervention compared to the control group (16% and 32% for intervention and control group, respectively estimated their risk higher compared to other outdoor workers: , p=0.11). No other clinical significant effects were observed at 12 months follow-up. Objective 3: Assess whether the intervention was equally effective in the stringent sun protection policy organisation and the less stringent sun protection policy organisation. The appearance-based intervention resulted in a clinically significant improvement in the stringent policy intervention group participants’ intention to protect from the sun at work (workplace*time interaction, p=0.01). In addition to a reduction in their willingness to tan both at work (will tan at baseline: 17% and 61%, p=0.06, at follow-up: 54% and 33%, p=0.07, stringent and less stringent policy intervention group respectively. The workplace*time interaction was significant p<0.001) and during leisure time (will tan at baseline: 42% and 78%, p=0.01, at follow-up: 50% and 63%, p=0.43, stringent and less stringent policy intervention group respectively. The workplace*time interaction was significant p=0.01) over the course of the study compared to the less stringent policy intervention group. However, no changes in actual sun protection behaviours were found. Objective 4: Examine the effect of the intervention on level of alarm and concern regarding the health of the skin as well as sun protection behaviours in both organisations. The immediate post-intervention results showed that the stringent policy organisation participants indicated to be less alarmed (p=0.04) and concerned (p<0.01) about the health of their skin and less likely to show the facial UV-photograph to others (family p=0.03) compared to the less stringent policy participants. A clinically significantly larger proportion of participants from the stringent policy organisation reported they worried more about skin cancer (65%) and skin freckling (43%) compared to those in the less stringent policy organisation (46%,and 23% respectively , after seeing the UV-photograph). In summary the results of this study suggest that the having a stringent work-related sun protection policy was significantly related to for work-time sun protection practices, but did not extend to leisure time sun protection. This could reflect the insufficient level of sun protection found in the general Australian population during leisure time. Alternatively, reactance caused by being restricted in personal decisions through work-time policy could have contributed to lower leisure time sun protection. Finally, other factors could have also contributed to the less than optimal leisure time sun protection behaviours reported, such as unmeasured personal or cultural barriers. All these factors combined may have lead to reduced willingness to take proper preventive action during leisure time exposure. The intervention did not result in any measurable difference between the intervention and control groups in sun protection behaviours in this population, potentially due to the long lag time between the implementation of the intervention and assessment at 12-months follow-up. In addition, high levels of sun protection behaviours were found at baseline (ceiling effect) which left little room for improvement. Further, this study did not assess sunscreen use, which was the predominant behaviour assessed in previous effective appearance-based interventions trials. Additionally, previous trials were mainly conducted in female populations, whilst the POWER-study’s population was all male. The observed immediate post-intervention result could be due to more emphasis being placed on sun protection and risks related to sun exposure in the stringent policy organisation. Therefore participants from the stringent policy organisation could have been more aware of harmful effects of UVR and hence, by knowing that they usually protect adequately, not be as alarmed or concerned as the participants from the less stringent policy organisation. In conclusion, a facial UV-photograph and SCRAT-letter information alone may not achieve large changes in sun-related cognitions and behaviour, especially of assessed 6-12 months after the intervention was implemented and in workers who are already quite well protected. Differences found between workers in the present study appear to be more attributable to organisational policy. However, against a background of organisational policy, this intervention may be a useful addition to sun-related workplace health and safety programs. The study findings have been interpreted while respecting a number of limitations. These have included non-random allocation of participants due to pre-organised allocation of participants to study group in one organisation and difficulty in separating participants from either study group. Due to the transient nature of the outdoor worker population, only 105 of 154 workers available at baseline could be reached for follow-up. (attrition rate=32%). In addition the discrepancy in the time to follow-up assessment between the two organisations was a limitation of the current study. Given the caveats of this research, the following recommendations were made for future research: - Consensus should be reached to define "outdoor worker" in terms of time spent outside at work as well as in the way sun protection behaviours are measured and reported. - Future studies should implement and assess the value of the facial UV-photographs in a wide range of outdoor worker organisations and countries. - More timely and frequent follow-up assessments should be implemented in intervention studies to determine the intervention effect and to identify the best timing of booster sessions to optimise results. - Future research should continue to aim to target outdoor workers’ leisure time cognitions and behaviours and improve these if possible. Overall, policy appears to be an important factor in workers’ compliance with work-time use of sun protection. Given the evidence generated by this research, organisations employing outdoor workers should consider stringent implementation and reinforcement of a sun protection policy. Finally, more research is needed to improve ways to generate desirable behaviour in this population during leisure time.

A case-control study of ambient heat exposure and urolithiasis among outdoor workers in a shipbuilding company, Guangzhou, China

Higher ambient temperatures will increase heat stress on workers, leading to impacts upon their individual health and productivity. In particular, research has indicated that higher ambient temperatures can increase the prevalence of urolithiasis. This thesis examines the relationship between ambient heat exposure and urolithiasis among outdoor workers in a shipbuilding company in Guangzhou, China, and makes recommendations for minimising the possible impacts of high ambient temperatures on urolithiasis. A retrospective 1:4 matched case-control study was performed to investigate the association between ambient heat exposure and urolithiasis. Ambient heat exposure was characterised by total exposure time, type of work, department and length of service. The data were obtained from the affiliated hospital of the shipbuilding company under study for the period 2003 to 2010. A conditional logistic regression model was used to estimate the association between heat exposure and urolithiasis. This study found that the odds ratio (OR) of urolithiasis for total exposure time was 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–1.8). Eight types of work in the shipbuilding company were investigated, including welder, assembler, production security and quality inspector, planing machine operator, spray painter, gas-cutting worker and indoor employee. Five out of eight types of work had significantly higher risks for urolithiasis, and four of the five mainly consisted of outdoors work with ORs of 4.4 (95% CI: 1.7–11.4) for spray painter, 3.8 (95% CI: 1.9–7.2) for welder, 2.7 (95% CI: 1.4–5.0) for production security and quality inspector, and 2.2 (95% CI: 1.1–4.3) for assembler, compared to the reference group (indoor employee). Workers with abnormal blood pressure (hypertension) were more likely to have urolithiasis with an OR of 1.6 (95% CI: 1.0–2.5) compared to those without hypertension. This study contributes to the understanding of the association between ambient heat exposure and urolithiasis among outdoor workers in China. In the context of global climate change, this is particularly important because rising temperatures are expected to increase the prevalence of urolithiasis among outdoor workers, putting greater pressure on productivity, occupational health management and health care systems. The results of this study have clear implications for public health policy and planning, as they indicate that more attention is required to protect outdoor workers from heat-related urolithiasis.

Uptake of skin self-examination and clinical examination behavior by outdoor workers

This study investigated the association between outdoor work and response to a behavioural skin cancer early detection intervention among men 50 years or older. Overall, 495 men currently working in outdoor, mixed or indoor occupations were randomised to a video-based intervention or control group. At 7 months post intervention, indoor workers reported the lowest proportion of whole-body skin self-examination (wbSSE; 20%). However, at 13 months mixed workers engaged more commonly in wbSSE (36%) compared to indoor (31%) and outdoor (32%) workers. In adjusted analysis, the uptake of early detection behaviours during the trial did not differ between men working in different settings. Outdoor workers compared to men in indoor or mixed work settings were similar in their response to an intervention encouraging uptake of secondary skin cancer prevention behaviours during this intervention trial.

Outdoor worker sun protection project : a comprehensive applied research project to demonstrate the effectiveness of sun protection measures which influence high risk outdoor workers in Queensland to adopt sun safe behaviour practices 2010 – 2013

The QUT Outdoor Worker Sun Protection (OWSP) project undertook a comprehensive applied health promotion project to demonstrate the effectiveness of sun protection measures which influence high risk outdoor workers in Queensland to adopt sun safe behaviours. The three year project (2010-2013) was driven by two key concepts: 1) The hierarchy of control, which is used to address risks in the workplace, advocates for six control measures that need to be considered in order of priority (refer to Section 3.4.2); and 2) the Ottawa Charter which recommends five action means to achieve health promotion (refer to Section 2.1). The project framework was underpinned by a participatory action research approach that valued peoples’ input, took advantage of existing skills and resources, and stimulated innovation (refer to Section 4.2). Fourteen workplaces (small and large) with a majority outdoor workforce were recruited across regional Queensland (Darling Downs, Northwest, Mackay and Cairns) from four industries types: 1) building and construction, 2) rural and farming, 3) local government, and 4) public sector. A workplace champion was identified at each workplace and was supported (through resource provision, regular contact and site visits) over a 14 to 18 month intervention period to make sun safety a priority in their workplace. Employees and employers were independently assessed for pre- and postintervention sun protection behaviours. As part of the intervention, an individualised sun safety action plan was developed in conjunction with each workplace to guide changes across six key strategy areas including: 1) Policy (e.g., adopt sun safety practices during all company events); 2) Structural and environmental (e.g., shade on worksites; eliminate or minimise reflective surfaces); 3) Personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., trial different types of sunscreens, or wide-brimmed hats); 4) Education and awareness (e.g., include sun safety in inductions and toolbox talks; send reminder emails or text messages to workers);5) Role modelling (e.g., by managers, supervisors, workplace champions and mentors); and 6) Skin examinations (e.g., allow time off work for skin checks). The participatory action process revealed that there was no “one size fits all” approach to sun safety in the workplace; a comprehensive, tailored approach was fundamental. This included providing workplaces with information, resources, skills, know how, incentives and practical help. For example, workplaces engaged in farming complete differing seasonal tasks across the year and needed to prepare for optimal sun safety of their workers during less labour intensive times. In some construction workplaces, long pants were considered a trip hazard and could not be used as part of a PPE strategy. Culture change was difficult to achieve and workplace champions needed guidance on the steps to facilitate this (e.g., influencing leaders through peer support, mentoring and role modelling). With the assistance of the project team the majority of workplaces were able to successfully implement the sun safety strategies contained within their action plans, up skilling them in the evidence for sun safety, how to overcome barriers, how to negotiate with all relevant parties and assess success. The most important enablers to the implementation of a successful action plan were a pro-active workplace champion, strong employee engagement, supportive management, the use of highly visual educational resources, and external support (provided by the project team through regular contact either directly through phone calls or indirectly through emails and e-newsletters). Identified barriers included a lack of time, the multiple roles of workplace champions, (especially among smaller workplaces), competing issues leading to a lack of priority for sun safety, the culture of outdoor workers, and costs or budgeting constraints. The level of sun safety awareness, knowledge, and sun protective behaviours reported by the workers increased between pre-and post-intervention. Of the nine sun protective behaviours that were assessed, the largest changes reported included a 26% increase in workers who “usually or always” wore a broad-brimmed hat, a 20% increase in the use of natural shade, a 19% increase in workers wearing long-sleeved collared shirts, and a 16% increase in workers wearing long trousers.

Outdoor Worker Sun Protection Project : a mixed methods intervention to improve sun safety among outdoor workers

Queensland, Australia has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. Outdoor workers are regularly exposed to high doses of ultraviolet radiation, and are at increased risk to develop non-melanoma and melanoma skin cancers. In 2010, a health promotion intervention to improve sun protection among outdoor workers in Queensland commenced. The intervention employed a mixed methods approach and a participatory action research framework. Fourteen workplaces were recruited from building and construction, rural and farming, local government, and public sector organisations. Management and workers were engaged in cycles of assessment, reflection and discussion, planning, implementation and reassessing, over a 14-month intervention period. Overall, at least one workplace representative from each workplace (range 1-3) and in depth focus groups were held with a subset of workers (range 3-16) to assess sun safe behaviours pre and post intervention. Workers’ attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and willingness to engage in sun protection differed depending on workplace characteristics and support. A familiar theme among workers spoke of sun safety as being “common sense” and the “workers individual responsibility”. Often there was a discrepancy in the perceptions of the workers, compared to the view of workplace representatives and the workplaces position or policy on sun safety. In larger workplaces, especially Government Departments, workers were more aware and followed sun safe practices compared to smaller workplaces where sun safety was not a high priority. These results indicate that a workplace culture which places high values on safety and polices more broadly may also have a positive effect on sun safety among outdoor workers as well. In addition, the specific characteristics of the workplace and the outdoor work tasks influence workers willingness to engage in sun safety measures.

What encourages sun protection among outdoor workers from four industries?

Objectives: We aimed to identify current practice of sun protection and factors associated with effective use in four outdoor worker industries in Queensland, Australia. Methods: Workplaces in four industries with a high proportion of outdoor workers (building/construction, rural/farming, local government, and public sector industries) were identified using an online telephone directory, screened for eligibility, and invited to participant via mail (n=15, recruitment rate 37%). A convenience sample of workers were recruited within each workplace (n=162). Workplaces’ sun protective policies and procedures were identified using interviews and policy analysis with workplace representatives, and discussion groups and computer-assisted telephone interviews with workers. Personal characteristics and sun protection knowledge, attitudes and behaviors were collated and analysed. Results: Just over half the workplaces had an existing policy which referred to sun protection (58%), and most provided at least some personal protective equipment (PPE), but few scheduled work outside peak sun hours (43%) or provided skin checks (21%). Several worker and workplace characteristics were associated with greater sun protection behaviour among workers, including having received education on the use of PPE (p<0.001), being concerned about being in the sun (p=0.002); and working in a smaller workplace (p=0.035). Conclusions: Uptake of sun protection by outdoor workers is affected by a complex interplay of both workplace and personal factors, and there is a need for effective strategies targeting both the workplace environment and workers’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors to decrease harmful sun exposure further.

Interventions to decrease skin cancer risk in outdoor workers : update to a 2007 systematic review

BACKGROUND: Outdoor workers are at high risk of harmful ultraviolet radiation exposure and are identified as an at risk group for the development of skin cancer. This systematic evidence based review provides an update to a previous review published in 2007 about interventions for the prevention of skin cancer in outdoor workers. RESULTS: This review includes interventions published between 2007-2012 and presents findings about sun protection behaviours and/or objective measures of skin cancer risk. Six papers met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Large studies with extended follow-up times demonstrated the efficacy of educational and multi-component interventions to increase sun protection, with some higher use of personal protective equipment such as sunscreen. However, there is less evidence for the effectiveness of policy or specific intervention components. CONCLUSIONS: Further research aimed at improving overall attitudes towards sun protection in outdoor workers is needed to provide an overarching framework.

Exposure to ambient heat and urolithiasis among outdoor workers in Guangzhou, China

Objectives: To assess the impact of exposure to ambient heat on urolithiasis among outdoor workers in a subtropical city of China. Methods: The 2003–2010 health check data of a shipbuilding company in Guangzhou, China were acquired. 190 cases and 760 matched controls were involved in this study. We assessed the relationship between exposure to ambient heat and urolithiasis for different occupations using conditional logistic regression. Results: Spray painters were most likely to develop urolithiasis (OR = 4.4; 95% CI: 1.7, 11.4), followed by smelter workers (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.8, 9.2), welders (OR = 3.7; 95% CI: 1.9, 7.2), production security and quality inspectors (OR = 2.7; 95% CI: 1.4, 3.0), and assemblers (OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 4.3). Overall, outdoor workers were more likely to present with urolithiasis compared with indoor employees (p b 0.05). In addition, workers with longer cumulative exposure time (OR = 1.5; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.8) and abnormal blood pressure (OR = 1.6; 95% CI: 1.0, 2.5) had higher risk for urolithiasis. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate a significant association between exposure to ambient heat and urolithiasis among outdoor working populations. Public health intervention strategies should be developed to specifically target outdoor occupations.

Changes in outdoor workers' sun-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors : a pre-post workplace intervention

OBJECTIVE To evaluate changes in outdoor workers' sun-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in response to a health promotion intervention using a participatory action research process. METHODS Fourteen workplaces across four outdoor industry types worked collaboratively with the project team to develop tailored sun protection action plans. Workers were assessed before and after the 18-month intervention. RESULTS Outdoor workers reported increases in workplace support for sun protection (P < 0.01) and personal use of sun protection (P < 0.01). More workers reported seeking natural shade (+20%) and wearing more personal protective equipment, including broad-brimmed hats (+25%), long-sleeved collared shirts (+19%), and long trousers (+16%). The proportion of workers reporting sunburn over the past 12 months was lower at postintervention (-14%) (P = 0.03); however, the intensity of reported sunburn increased. CONCLUSIONS This intervention was successful in increasing workers' sun protective attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Assessing exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) for workers in the vicinity of a large recycling facility

Increased levels of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) can occur particularly in dust and soil surrounding facilities that recycle products containing PBDEs. This may be the source of increased exposure for nearby workers and residents. To investigate, we measured PBDE levels in soil, office dust and blood of workers at the closest workplace (i.e. within 100m) to a large automotive shredding and metal recycling facility in Brisbane, Australia. The workplace investigated in this study was independent of the automotive shredding facility and was one of approximately 50 businesses of varying types within a relatively large commercial/industrial area surrounding the recycling facility. Concentrations of PBDEs in soils were at least an order of magnitude greater than background levels in the area. Congener profiles were dominated by larger molecular weight congeners; in particular BDE-209. This reflected the profile in outdoor air samples previously collected at this site. Biomonitoring data from blood serum indicated no differential exposure for workers near the recycling facility compared to a reference group of office workers, also in Brisbane. Unlike air, indoor dust and soil sample profiles, serum samples from both worker groups were dominated by congeners BDE-47, BDE-153, BDE-99, BDE-100 and BDE-183 and was similar to the profile previously reported in the general Australian population. Estimated exposures for workers near the industrial point source suggested indoor workers had significantly higher exposure than outdoor workers due to their exposure to indoor dust rather than soil. However, no relationship was observed between blood PBDE levels and different roles and activity patterns of workers on-site. These comparisons of PBDE levels in serum provide additional insight into the inter-individual variability within Australia. Results also indicate congener patterns in the workplace environment did not match blood profiles of workers. This was attributed to the relatively high background exposures for the general Australian population via dietary intake and the home environment.

Promoting sun safety in the workplace – what works?

Objective Australia has one of the highest skin cancer incidence and mortality rates in the world. Outdoor workers are a high risk group. Australian workplaces are undergoing large scale safety related changes, yet the mandate to provide specific sun safe practices remains absent. With much of the previous research aiming to improve sun safety in the workplace being quantitative in nature, relatively little is known about why certain sun safe strategies will or will not be successful in workplaces. Methods This qualitative article explores the enablers and barriers identified during an 18-month mixed methods project conducted in Queensland, Australia which aimed to improve workplace sun safe interventions. Results A variety of key enablers and barriers to implementing sun safe interventions in the workplace were identified, including presence of an engaged workplace champion, ownership and innovation by the workers. Conclusions These findings were part of a broader integration of interlinked qualitative and quantitative methods to yield a more complete picture of the determinants of the issue, implementation process and likelihood of changes at the workplace. Implications The paper provides guidance for public and occupational health practitioners on the selection of the most promising strategies when assisting workplaces to become sun safe.