Usage of personal protective devices among Egyptian industrial workers

Our plain-English summary of Usage of personal protective devices among Egyptian industrial workers, by A.A. Kamal, G.M. Sayed, M.H. Hassan, et al (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1988).

The study

• Authors: A.A. Kamal, G.M. Sayed, M.H. Hassan, A.A. Massoud
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 1988;13(6):707-16
• Cited by: 16 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

A systematic random sample of 405 workers from metal, asbestos cement pipes, textile, and viscose rayon industries were interviewed using a prepared and tested questionnaire. Personal Protective Devices (PPDs), namely goggles, gloves, respirators, and ear defenders, had been distributed to all workers on the payroll and were used by 31.4%. Usage of PPDs was associated with the educational level, duration of occupation, awareness of the work hazards, and knowledge about the purpose of PPDs. Marked association was found between nonusage of PPDs and discomfort, interference with job performance, and the psychological feeling of lowering the person's prestige by the wearing of PPDs. Nonusage was also associated with lack of maintenance of the device and absence of supervision of its usage. Users were more numerous among married workers and workers with urban residence than among unmarried workers and those with rural residence, respectively. No association could be found between the rate of usage and the worker's age except for ear plugs, for which nonusage was proportional to the worker's age. The most important factors were those related to the role of the safety staff and the discomfort of the devices. Recommendations for occupational health authorities on the basis of the above evaluation are suggested.

In plain English

This study asked why industrial workers in Egypt did or did not use the protective devices (goggles, gloves, respirators and ear defenders) they had been issued. The authors interviewed a systematic random sample of 408 workers with a tested questionnaire. The sample was 100 workers at an iron-bar factory, 100 at an asbestos cement pipe plant who were supposed to wear dust respirators, and 208 at a textile and viscose rayon company exposed to noise and/or carbon disulfide. All had been issued devices, but 31.4% used them. Use was associated with education, awareness of hazards, and knowing what the devices were for. Non-use was associated with discomfort, interference with work, a feeling that wearing devices lowered the worker's prestige, and lack of maintenance or supervision. Skilled workers used devices more than manual workers; the printed rates (68.9% and 31.4%) do not fit the article's own totals. Of the 208 noise-exposed workers, 37 used ear defenders. The article gave no results specific to the asbestos cement workers. The authors concluded that safety-staff factors, discomfort and the prestige feeling were the most important.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Cross-sectional interview survey using a questionnaire, analysed with chi-square tests, an 'excess risk ratio' and a 'sample attributable risk'
• Who was studied: Systematic random sample of 408 Egyptian industrial workers: 100 from the National Company for Metal Industry (iron bars), 100 from the Sigwart Plant for asbestos cement pipes, and 208 from Esco Company for Textiles and Viscose Rayon. Study dates were not given.
• Exposure: Workplace hazards requiring protective devices. Metal workers faced infrared rays and hot objects (goggles, gloves). Asbestos cement pipe workers emptied asbestos bales, mixed asbestos with cement, and cut and polished pipes, and needed dust respirators; no fiber type is named. Textile and viscose rayon workers faced noise of 95 to 100 dB and/or carbon disulfide (organic vapor respirators, ear defenders). The outcome studied was use or non-use of the issued devices.
• Main results:
  • 31.4% of the study sample used their protective devices.
  • Use was higher among workers who were aware of their work hazards or knew the protective role of the devices than among those who did not (p less than 0.001).
  • Fewer workers used devices among those who reported discomfort or interference with job performance (p less than 0.0001).
  • The feeling that wearing devices lowered one's prestige was reported by 36.8% (n = 89) of rural-residence workers and 9.6% (n = 16) of urban-residence workers.
  • Use rates were higher when devices were maintained and usage was supervised than when these were absent (p less than 0.001).
  • Skilled workers used devices more than manual workers. The printed rates were 68.9% for skilled and 31.4% for manual workers. These figures are inconsistent with the article's own counts: 55 skilled and 353 manual workers, and 128 users among 408 workers overall (31.4%). Applying 68.9% to 55 and 31.4% to 353 would give about 149 users, not 128.
  • Mean age did not differ significantly between users (n = 128) and non-users (n = 280). For ear defenders, use fell with age: of 208 noise-exposed workers, 37 used them; 72.9% of users were under 40, and 67.25% of non-users were over 40.
  • The safety staff had informed only 35 (10.6%) of the workers who knew about the work hazard.
  • Although 30.1% of the sample were illiterate, illiteracy ranked as the least important factor in non-use.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the factors most strongly linked to non-use were those related to the safety staff's role, discomfort of the devices, and the psychological feeling about wearing them. They recommended training safety staff, considering workers' feelings, and selecting comfortable devices.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos-Cement, Respirator.

Related studies

• Physiological and subjective responses to working in disposable protective coveralls and respirators commonly used by the asbestos abatement industry — M.K. White, T.K. Hodous, et al. (1989)
• Effect of respiratory protective equipment on exposure to asbestos fibres during removal of asbestos insulation — H. Akkersdijk, C.F. Bremmer, et al. (1989)
• Personal exposure to asbestos dust during clearance certification — S. Bailey, A. Conchie, et al. (1988)
• Evaluation of simian virus-40 as a biological prognostic factor in Egyptian patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma — A.R. Zekri, A.A. Bahnassy, et al. (2007)
• The lncRNAs Gas5, MALAT1 and SNHG8 as diagnostic biomarkers for epithelial malignant pleural mesothelioma in Egyptian patients — D.M. Elkahwagy, C.J. Kiriacos, et al. (2024)
• BAP1 gene mutations in Egyptian patients with advanced sporadic malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): relation with clinical outcomes and survival — A.A. Bahnasy, R.S. El-Din, et al. (2018)

Browse more research in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.