پديد آورندگان :
موسوي، مهدي دانشگاه علوم پزشكي تهران - دانشكده بهداشت - گروه مهندسي بهداشت حرفه اي، تهران، ايران , يزداني راد، سعيد دانشگاه علوم پزشكي شهركرد - دانشكده بهداشت، شهركرد، ايران , شبگرد، زهره دانشگاه علوم پزشكي جندي شاپوراهواز - دانشكده بهداشت - گروه مهندسي بهداشت حرفه اي، اهواز، ايران , مرادي راد، روح الدين دانشگاه تربيت مدرس - دانشكده پزشكي، تهران، ايران , بهزادي نژاد، فرزاد دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي واحد اهواز - گروه مديريت محيط زيست، اهواز، ايران
چكيده لاتين :
Background and aims: Given the complexity and unpredictability of human beings, the
control of their behavior is difficult. However, it is possible to reduce many of these
behaviors through accurate planning and well-documented training. One of the important
ways to change people's behavior is through the use of educational interventions. Several
studies have been performed on the use of an educational intervention for improving
employee's behavior in different industries and occupations. Another way for behavior
correction is the use of the rewards and punishment system. Rewards mean applying a
training strategy that is used to create, correct or stabilizes behavior and encouraging action
for its repetition. However, the studies have not yet examined the simultaneous effect of two
strategies of the educational intervention and the encouragement and punishment system for
reducing unsafe behavior. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the effects of educational
interventions and the implementation of a reward and punishment system on reducing the
unsafe behaviors among workers of the Mapna plant of Kashan.
Methods: The present interventional study was carried out on 115 workers of the Mapna
plant of Kashan in 2017. Inclusion criteria included having work experience higher than one
year in Mapna company. Also, an exclusion criterion was the changed behavior due to the
presence of researchers. The sampling method was the classified random. First, a preliminary
evaluation was performed to recognize the jobs and processes in the company. In the present
study, unsafe behaviors are defined as actions outside of the standard limits determined in
the system. For this reason, a list of unsafe behavior was provided by observations and
literature review, including a list of unsafe practices of American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), type and nature of work, rules and instructions for performing work, and
reports of accidents and semi-accidents in a company. Then, a checklist was designed based
on this list. Also, for evaluating the unsafe behaviors of the workers, the sampling safety
behaviors (SSB) technique was used for three months. In this technique, all the behavior of
workers while performing the task is imperceptibly observed and information about their
behavior is recorded by the designed checklist. For this purpose, all data were collected by
researchers in the morning shift from 8 am to 6 pm. The number of observations per person
was 80, which was randomly done during the individual work shift. In this study, the time of
each observation was between 3 and 5 seconds. Then, the educational intervention and the
system of the rewards and punishment were simultaneously implemented for six months. At
final, a secondary assessment of the unsafe behavior was conducted for three months. The
data related to the behavior assessment of the workers before and after performing the
interventions were entered into SPSS software version 20 and were analyzed. Kolmogorov- Smirnov statistical test was used to evaluate the normality of the study variables. The results
of this test showed that the data distribution was not normal (p <0.05). Therefore, Wilcoxon
statistical test was applied to examine the relationships among variables. The significance
level was equal to 0.05.Results: The mean and standard deviation values of the age were 37.56 and 9.8 years old,
respectively. Also, the mean and standard deviation values of the work experience were
12.22 and 9.6, respectively. In this study, 48.7% of the studied subjects had a diploma degree
and 85.2% of them were married. The results showed that the highest and lowest numbers of
the observations were related to the occupational groups of the cutting and assembling with
1040 and 480 cases, respectively. The total number of obtained unsafe behavior observations
was equal to 2405. The results also indicated that 478 (45.96%) cutters and 276 (33.38%)
scaffolders had the most cases of unsafe behaviors, respectively. Before the training
interventions and implementation of the rewards and punishment system, some unsafe
behaviors of cutters included non-use of personal protective equipment and the use of
inappropriate personal protective equipment. The least number of unsafe behaviors was observed in the mold workers (15.46%). Based on the results, cutters with 226 (21.72%),
loader operators with 98 (12.25%), and mini loader operators with 91 cases (11.37%) had the
most numbers of unsafe behaviors after educational interventions and implementation of the
rewards and punishment system. The lowest number of unsafe behaviors were observed in
the mold workers with 30 (4.68%) and excavator operators with 50 cases (8.92%),
respectively. The results also revealed that mini-loader operators with 55.48%, steel frame
installers with 55.45%, and paint workers with 55.14% had most decreases of the unsafe
behavior after educational interventions and implementation of rewards and punishment
systems. Based on the results, mold workers with 30.3% and scaffolding workers with
30.43% had the least decrease in unsafe behaviors. However, the results showed that the rate
of unsafe behaviors has decreased in all occupations after interventions. Based on the results,
the relative frequencies of the unsafe behaviors before and after interventions were 24.82 and
10.99 percent, respectively. Wilcoxon test showed that there were significant relationships
between the safety training and reward and punishment systems with the reduced unsafe
behaviors in employees of different occupations (p=0.041). The results also indicated that
there was a significant inverse relationship between work experience and unsafe behaviors
before and after interventions (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Results indicated that the intended interventions were effective in reducing
unsafe behaviors. Therefore, these interventions can be used to reduce unsafe behaviors in
various industries. Given that unsafe behaviors are one of the main causes of accidents, it is
recommended that comprehensive programs are considered for implementing and repeating
the specialized training courses based on the safety needs of each job. Also, the reward and
punishment system can be used to motivate workers for implementing safe behaviors. One of
the limitations of the present study was the lack of investigation of independent effects
related to two techniques of the educational intervention and the rewards and punishment
system, which can be examined in future studies.
