Table 5.
Logistic regression modelsa for survey and activity card/dosimetry HPD use ≤ or >50%
| Variable | Survey (n = 230) | Activity card/dosimetry (n = 249) | ||
| Individual predictors, OR (95% CI) | Final model, OR (95% CI) | Individual predictors, OR (95% CI) | Final model, OR (95% CI) | |
| Demographics | ||||
| Hearing status (define) | 0.6 (0.4–0.9) | — | 0.6 (0.4–1.0) | — |
| Percent of shift noise >85 dBA (reference: ≤25%) | ||||
| >25 or ≤50 | 0.9 (0.5–1.7) | — | 2.9 (1.4–5.9) | 3.1 (1.5–6.5) |
| >50 | 0.5 (0.2–1.2) | — | 1.8 (0.7–4.2) | 1.9 (0.8–4.8) |
| Years in construction (reference: <10) | ||||
| 10–20 years | 0.9 (0.5–1.9) | 1.3 (0.6–3.0) | 1.5 (0.8–3.0) | — |
| >20 years | 0.5 (0.2–1.0) | 0.5 (0.2–1.1) | 1.0 (0.5–2.1) | — |
| Education (reference: <HS) | ||||
| HS or GED | 4.8 (1.3–17.6) | 5.8 (1.5–22.6) | 2.9 (0.9–9.2) | — |
| >HS | 6.1 (1.6–23.9) | 6.0 (1.5–24.9) | 2.7 (0.8–9.3) | — |
| HPM factors | ||||
| Not unsafe to wear HPD | 1.1 (0.9–1.4) | — | 1.3 (1.0–1.7) | — |
| Others remind me to use HPD | 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | — | 1.2 (1.0–1.5) | — |
| Boss thinks should use HPD | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) | — | 1.3 (1.0–1.6) | — |
| Lost hearing problem | 0.8 (0.7–1.0) | — | 1.0 (0.8–1.2) | — |
| Easier to hear with HPD | 1.3 (1.0–1.6) | 1.3 (1.0–1.6) | 1.2 (1.0–1.5) | — |
| HPD is not uncomfortable | 1.5 (1.2–1.9) | 1.4 (1.1–1.9) | 1.5 (1.2–2.0) | — |
| HPD not time consuming | 1.8 (1.4–2.5) | 1.8 (1.2–2.5) | 1.5 (1.1–2.0) | 1.4 (1.0-2.0) |
| Self-efficacy | 1.7 (1.1–2.7) | 1.6 (0.9–2.7) | 1.6 (1.0–2.6) | — |
| Preventing hearing loss important | 2.6 (1.6–4.3) | — | 2.2 (1.3–3.7) | 1.9 (1.1–3.3) |
a
Site and trade were included a-priori in each model.