Infectious diseases, immune status, and health insurance among child care providers in Houston, Texas

The objectives of this study were to compare female child-care providers with female university workers and with mothers of children in child-care centers for: (1) frequency of illness and work loss days due to infectious diseases, (2) prevalence of antibodies against measles, rubella, mumps, hepatitis B, hepatitis A, chickenpox and cytomegalovirus (CMV), and (3) status regarding health insurance and job benefits.^ Subjects from twenty child-care centers and twenty randomly selected departments of a university in Houston, Texas were studied in a cross-sectional fashion.^ A cluster sample of 281 female child-care providers from randomly selected child-care centers, a cluster sample of 286 university workers from randomly selected departments and a systematic sample of 198 mothers of children from randomly selected child-care centers.^ Main outcome measures were: (1) self-reported frequency of infectious diseases and number of work-days lost due to infectious diseases; (2) presence of antibodies in blood; and (3) self-reported health insurance and job benefits.^ In comparison to university workers, child-care providers reported a higher prevalence of infectious diseases in the past 30 days; lost three times more work-days due to infectious diseases; and were more likely to have anti-core antibodies against hepatitis B (odds ratio = 3.16 95% CI 1.27-7.85) and rubella (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.02-3.45). Child-care providers had less health insurance and job-related benefits than mothers of children attending child-care centers.^ Regulations designed to reduce transmission of vaccine and non-vaccine preventable diseases in child-care centers should be strictly enforced. In addition policies to improve health insurance and job benefits of child-care providers are urgently needed. ^

Cross-culture perspectives on fear of HIV disease and AIDS in health care workers

Health care workers have been known to carry into the workplace a variety of judgmental and negative attitudes towards their patients. In no other area of patient care has this issue been more pronounced as in the management of patients with AIDS. Health care workers have refused to treat or manage patients with AIDS and have often treated them more harshly than identically described leukemia patients. Some health care institutions have simply refused to admit patients with AIDS and even recent applicants to medical colleges and schools of nursing have indicated a preference for schools in areas with low prevalence of HIV disease. Since the attitudes of health care workers do have significant consequences on patient management, this study was carried out to determine the differences in clinical practice in Nigeria and the United States of America as it relates to knowledge of a patient's HIV status, determine HIV prevalence and culture in each of the study sites and how they impact on infection control practices, determine the relationship between infection control practices and fear of AIDS, and also determine the predictors of safe infection control practices in each of the study sites.^ The study utilized the 38-item fear of AIDS scale and the measure of infection control questionnaire for its data. Questionnaires were administered to health care workers at the university teaching hospital sites of Houston, Texas and Calabar in Nigeria. Data was analyzed using a chi-square test, and where appropriate, a student t-tests to establish the demographic variables for each country. Factor analysis was done using principal components analysis followed by varimax rotation to simple structure. The subscale scores for each study site were compared using t-tests (separate variance estimates) and utilizing Bonferroni adjustments for number of tests. Finally, correlations were carried out between infection control procedures and fear of AIDS in each study site using Pearson-product moment correlation coefficients.^ The study revealed that there were five dimensions of the fear of AIDS in health care workers, namely fear of loss of control, fear of sex, fear of HIV infection through blood and illness, fear of death and medical interventions and fear of contact with out-groups. Fear of loss of control was the primary area of concern in the Nigerian health care workers whereas fear of HIV infection through blood and illness was the most important area of AIDS related feats in United States health care workers. The study also revealed that infection control precautions and practices in Nigeria were based more on normative and social pressures whereas it was based on knowledge of disease transmission, supervision and employee discipline in the United States, and thus stresses the need for focused educational programs in health care settings that emphasize universal precautions at all times and that are sensitive to the cultural nuances of that particular environment. ^

A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^