an invitation letter with an embedded link to the survey via the email on file with NEHA. For the virtual focus group discussion, potential participants were invited via NEHA social media and e-news platform. The focus group discussion was conducted using Micro- soft Teams in June 2022. A total of seven EH professionals from dierent county health departments consented to participate in the focus group, which lasted 90 min. After, cap- tions (i.e., a transcript file) were downloaded and copied into Word for thematic analysis. The aim of the analysis was to develop a broad understanding of themes and how data from the focus group compared with data from our survey. We then used descriptive statistics to provide information about the variables in the data sets and identify the relationships between them. We used nonparametric tests (i.e., Kruskal–Wallis H test and Mann–Whit- ney U test) to determine statistical signifi- cance between two or more variables that were not normally distributed. Results A total of 158 participants completed the sur- vey. Of these participants, 48.7% self-identi- fied as male, 50.0% self-identified as female, and 1.3% preferred not to self-identify. The sample age distribution was 21.5% (25–34 years), 25.3% (35–44 years), 21.5% (45–54 years), 22.2% (55–64 years), and 9.5% (65–74 years). The average number of years worked as an EHP was 15.9 years. The greatest per- centage of the respondents (29.2%) worked at a regional local government, followed by 19.0% at a state department of health, 17.7% at a metropolitan local government, and 15.8% at other public health agencies. All respondents indicated that they received edu- cation at the college or university level. General Workplace Exposures Survey respondents were asked to report on specific workplace exposures (in hours) that they could recall in a typical week prior to completing the survey. The main workplace exposure reported by participants (3.1%) was the average hours of exposure to direct sunlight with or without appropriate sun protection. This exposure was followed by average hourly exposure to chemicals (2.1%), with disinfectants being the main reported chemical substance (15.2%). Hourly average exposure
to biological hazards was indicated by 2.1% of the respondents, with the main reported expo- sures being sewage (47.5%), mold and fungi (41.1%), and airborne pathogens (35.5%). Hourly average exposure to dust was indicated by 1.7% of the respondents, with the main dust exposures being organic or vegetable dust (14.6%) and biological aerosols (7%). There was no significant dierence between expo- sure hazards and demographic variables (e.g., gender, age group, employer description, job position, education level). General Organization Commitment to Occupational Health And Safety Table 1 presents participant responses to OHS statements related to the management com- mitment of their organization to OHS. In gen- eral, most participants expressed satisfaction with the OHS commitment of their employ- ers. There were concerns, however, with some high-risk tasks and risky situations. Psychosocial Demands of Work To assess work psychological demands, par- ticipants were asked questions related to time demand, cognitive demand, job satisfaction, and job control. In general, most respondents gave the impression of a positive psychosocial workplace environment at their respective organizations. A few areas of concern, how- ever, were observed. Most respondents indicated that they find their job moderately stressful (41.4%). Many reported that their job is mildly stressful (29.0%) or not stressful at all (2.1%). A con- cerning percentage of respondents, however, indicated that they find their job very stress- ful (20.0%) or extremely stressful (7.6%). There was no significant dierence between the level of job stress and demographic variables (e.g., gender, age group, employer description, job position, education level). More than 30% of participants indicated that they are sometimes or often pressured to work long hours. A Kruskal–Wallis test showed a significant dierence among the cat- egory age group: H (4) = 11.44, p =.022. Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that the age group of 65–74 years was dierent compared with the age group of 35–44 years ( p =.030). Furthermore, there were dierences when the following age groups were compared: 65–74 years with 25–34 years ( p =.019); 55–64 years with 35–44 years ( p =.032); and 55–64 years
study also provided an opportunity to assess the occupational health impact of the pan- demic on the EHP workforce. Methods Data for our study were collected via a cross- sectional online survey supplemented by a virtual focus group discussion to confirm and explore some of the themes and data items that emerged from the survey. We chose these methods for data collection because the required data were not available in the scientific literature and not directly observ- able (Phillips, 2017). In addition, the survey method allowed for rapid deployment and return of surveys as well as maximum reach of the target population. The Australian National Hazard Exposure Worker Surveillance (NHEWS) survey was adapted for our study. This survey was devel- oped by the Australian Safety and Compensa- tion Council in 2008. Questions included in the NHEWS survey were selected from vari- ous other surveys, including the European Working Conditions Survey (Eurofound, 2015) and the Employee Core Module of the National Exposures at Work Survey (Boiano & Hull, 2010). We adapted the NHEWS survey for our research by deleting some questions related to tasks, behaviors, or other areas not relevant to EHPs. We added several questions to cover EHP issues not specifically addressed in the NHEWS instrument (e.g., asbestos exposure, COVID-19, workplace incidents). Our sur- vey comprised nominal, ordinal, Likert scale, and ratio scale questions. Overall, our survey contained 34 questions, some of which had multiple parts, and was structured around 10 key themes: demographics, working arrange- ments, physical hazards, chemical hazards, psychosocial hazards, work symptoms, work- place violence, workplace asbestos, COVID- 19, and workplace incident reporting. We used a purposive sampling approach for the cross-sectional survey, which allowed any potential respondent to self-select into the sample; thus, we avoided potential sample bias. This sample approach was considered appropriate because EH is a small workforce and the target population is well defined. We distributed the survey, administered via the Qualtrics online survey platform, through a collaboration with NEHA in September 2021. Potential survey respondents were sent
15
January/February 2024 • Journal of Environmental Health
Powered by FlippingBook