Results
A total of 191 subjects responded to our recruitment
efforts and were screened for study eligibility. Of these,
150 subjects were eligible and were invited to the focus
group sessions. All initially agreed; ultimately, 99 subjects
participated in 12 focus group sessions (43 in Lubbock
and 56 in Houston) for an overall participation of
66%. Of those attending, 37% reported learning about
thestudy from family/friends/coworkers and through word
of mouth, 29% from flyers/brochures and 34% from newspaper
ads. Mean age was 43.2 years (SD 5 11.9). As
expected, the majority were Hispanic (61%) and female
(88%). Most were non-smokers (62%) and had worked
as cleaners for a mean of 9.6 years (SD 5 8.5). During
the sessions, 79 of 99 study participants contributed actively
to the discussion: 32 self-described themselves as
working in domestic and 47 in industrial settings. Those
who did not attend the focus group sessions, despite initially
agreeing, were more likely to work in a domestic setting
(n 5 33) and more likely to be female (n 5 45).
Participants reported using a total of 66 different products
to clean residential, industrial and commercial zones.
Of these, a total of 48 different respiratory irritants and
sensitizers were identified; domestic cleaners reported
more frequent exposure to respiratory irritants and sensitizers
than industrial cleaners.
Three general themes emerged regarding cleaning professionals’
work experiences: (i) job training, (ii) chemical
exposure and use and (iii) competence. Typically,
respondents working in domestic settings indicated receiving
merely informal or no training. In most cases,
their training occurred on-the-job, provided by a partner
who in most cases was a relative or friend. Domestic
cleaners described their training as not instructive, but
as being trained through trial and error as exemplified
in the following comments:
ResultsA total of 191 subjects responded to our recruitmentefforts and were screened for study eligibility. Of these,150 subjects were eligible and were invited to the focusgroup sessions. All initially agreed; ultimately, 99 subjectsparticipated in 12 focus group sessions (43 in Lubbockand 56 in Houston) for an overall participation of66%. Of those attending, 37% reported learning aboutthestudy from family/friends/coworkers and through wordof mouth, 29% from flyers/brochures and 34% from newspaperads. Mean age was 43.2 years (SD 5 11.9). Asexpected, the majority were Hispanic (61%) and female(88%). Most were non-smokers (62%) and had workedas cleaners for a mean of 9.6 years (SD 5 8.5). Duringthe sessions, 79 of 99 study participants contributed activelyto the discussion: 32 self-described themselves asworking in domestic and 47 in industrial settings. Thosewho did not attend the focus group sessions, despite initiallyagreeing, were more likely to work in a domestic setting(n 5 33) and more likely to be female (n 5 45).Participants reported using a total of 66 different productsto clean residential, industrial and commercial zones.Of these, a total of 48 different respiratory irritants andsensitizers were identified; domestic cleaners reportedmore frequent exposure to respiratory irritants and sensitizersthan industrial cleaners.Three general themes emerged regarding cleaning professionals’work experiences: (i) job training, (ii) chemicalexposure and use and (iii) competence. Typically,respondents working in domestic settings indicated receivingmerely informal or no training. In most cases,their training occurred on-the-job, provided by a partnerwho in most cases was a relative or friend. Domesticcleaners described their training as not instructive, butas being trained through trial and error as exemplifiedin the following comments:
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..