Occupational noise-induced hearing loss is the second most self-reported occupational illness or injury in the United States. Among coal miners, more than 90% of the population reports a hearing deficit by age 55. In this formative evaluation, focus groups were conducted with coal miners in Appalachia to ascertain whether miners perceive hearing loss as a major health risk and if so, what would motivate the consistent wearing of hearing protection devices (HPDs). The theoretical framework of the Extended Parallel Process Model was used to identify the miners’ knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and current behaviors regarding hearing protection. Focus group participants had strong perceived severity and varying levels of perceived susceptibility to hearing loss. Various barriers significantly reduced the self-efficacy and the response efficacy of using hearing protection.
1. American Speech-Language Hearing Association: Now hear this: Shhhhh. UtneReader, September-October 1998, pp. 93-94.
2.
2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: NIOSH warns of hearing loss among coal miners, suggests measures to protect hearing, in Preventing Occupational Hearing Loss—A Practical Guide (DHHS, NIOSH Publication No. 96-110). Bethesda, MD, 1996.
3.
3. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Analysis of Audiograms for a Large Cohort of Noise-Exposed Miners. Internal Report for NIOSH, Bethesda, MD, 1996.
4.
4. Thimons E, Bauer ER: Prep Plant and Underground Coal Mine Noise Survey Results. Unpublished report, United Mine Workers of America and Bituminous Coal Operators of America Meeting on Noise Control Technology, Pittsburgh, PA, July 12-13, 2000.
5.
5. Witte K, Morrison K: Intercultural and cross-cultural health communication: Understanding people and motivating healthy behaviors. International and Intercultural Communication Annual19:216-246, 1995.
6.
6. Valoski MP: Reported noise-induced hearing loss among miners. Applied Occupational and Environmental Safety and Hygiene12:1055-1058, 1997.
7.
7. Witte K: Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs59:329-349, 1992.
8.
8. Sheeley, EC: Glossary, in Katz J (ed.): Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1985.
9.
9. National Institutes of Health: Pow: Noise and Hearing Loss. Consensus Statement 8, NIH Consensus Development Conference, Bethesda, MD, January 22-24, 1990.
10.
10. Scheller M: Not so loud. Current Health2:13-15, 1997.
11.
11. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Criteria for a Recommended Standard (DHHS, NIOSH Publication No. 98-126). Bethesda, MD, 1998.
12.
12. Royster LH, Royster JD: Important elements and characteristics of hearing conservation program and determination of their effectiveness. Sound and Vibration24:339-352, 1990.
13.
13. Royster LH, Royster JD: Guidelines for developing an effective hearing conservation program. Sound and Vibration16:22-25, 1982.
14.
14. Leventhal H: Findings and theory in the study of fear communication, in Berkowitz L (ed.): Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press,1970, pp.119-186.
15.
15. Leventhal H: Fear appeals and persuasion: The differentiation of a motivational construct. Am J Public Health61:1208-1224, 1971.
16.
16. Leventhal H, Safer MA, Panagis DM: The impact of communications on the self-regulation of health beliefs, decisions, and behavior. Health Education Quarterly10:3-29, 1983.
17.
17. Rogers RW: A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol91:93-114, 1975.
18.
18. Rogers RW: Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation, in Cacioppo J, Petty R. (eds.): Social Psychology. New York: Guilford, 1983, pp. 153-176.
19.
19. Kline K, Mattson M: Breast self-examination pamphlets: A context analysis grounded in fear appeal research. Health Communication12:1-21, 2000.
20.
20. Roberto AJ, Meyer G, Johnson AJ, Atkin C: Using the extended parallel process model to prevent firearm injury and death: Field experiment results of a video-based intervention. Journal of Communication50:157-175, 2000.
21.
21. Stephenson M, Witte K: Fear, threat, and perceptions of efficacy from frightening skin cancer messages. Public Health Rev26:147-174, 1998.
22.
22. Witte K: The role of threat and efficacy in AIDS prevention. International Quarterly of Community Health Education12:249-255, 1992.
23.
23. Witte K: Message and conceptual confounds in fear appeal: The role of threat, fear, and efficacy. Southern Communication Journal58:147-155, 1993.
24.
24. Witte K: Fear control and danger control: A test of the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM). Communication Monographs61:113-134, 1994.
25.
25. Kerlinger FN: Foundations of Behavioral Research (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1986.
26.
26. Lofland J, Lofland L: Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qusysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1985.
27.
27. Patel DS, Witte K, Zuckerman C, Orrego V, Maxfield A, Hogan SM, Tisdale J, Thimons ED: Understanding Barriers to Preventive Health Actions for Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, 1999.
29. Krueger, RA: Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.
30.
30. Monahan J: Thinking positively: Using positive affect when designing health messages, in Maibach E, Parrott RL (eds.): Designing Health Messages. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995, pp. 81-98.
31.
31. Niedenthal PM, Showers C: The perception and processing of affective information and its influences on social judgment, in Forgas JP (ed.): Emotion and Social Judgment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991, pp. 125-143.
32.
32. Witte K: Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using the extended parallel process model to explain fear appeal successes and failures, in Andersen PA and Guerrero LK (eds): Communication and Emotion: Theory, Research, and Applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998, pp. 423-450.
33.
33. Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd edition). Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1993.
34.
34. Gasaway DC: 50 years of hearing conservation: Review of lessons learned. Hearing Protection and Hearing Conservation. Aero Company, Indianapolis, IN, 1997.
