4.2 Article

Photovoice in the Workplace: A Participatory Method to Give Voice to Workers to Identify Health and Safety Hazards and Promote Workplace Change-A Study of University Custodians

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE
卷 53, 期 11, 页码 1150-1158

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20873

关键词

-

资金

  1. AFSCME through National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences [U45 ES007823]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Photovoice, a photographic participatory action research methodology was used in a workplace setting to assess hazards that were creating extremely high injury and incidents rates for university custodians and to promote the conditions to eliminate or reduce those hazards. Methods University custodians participated in a Photo voice project to identify categorize, and prioritize occupational hazards and to discuss and propose solutions to these problems. Results were presented to management and to all custodians for further discussion. The effort was led by a worker-based union-sponsored participatory evaluation team in partnership with a university researcher. Results Visual depiction of hazardous tasks and exposures among custodians and management focused primarily on improper or unsafe equipment, awkward postures, lifting hazards, and electrical hazards. The process of taking pictures and presenting them created an ongoing discussion among workers and management regarding the need for change and for process improvements, and resulted in greater interest and activity regarding occupational health among the workers. In a follow-up evaluation 1-year later, a number of hazards identified through Photovoice had been corrected. Injury rates for custodians had decreased from 39% to 26%. Conclusions Photovoice can be an important tool, not just for identifying occupational hazards, but also empowering workers to be more active around health and safety and may facilitate important changes in the workplace. Am. J. Ind. Med. 53:1150-1158,2010. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据