A Qualitative Study to Identify Characteristics of a Desirable Training Program for Prevention of Occupational Skin Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Training and education may be effective strategies for the prevention of work-related contact dermatitis. While there is some information in the literature related to skin-specific training experiences, there is very little information available on workers' preferences related to content and format and to barriers and facilitators to training. OBJECTIVES: To understand workers' experiences and preferences for workplace training and barriers and facilitators to training. METHODS: Following ethics approval, 24 patients with work-related contact dermatitis participated in semi-structured interviews obtaining information on training experiences, perceived training effectiveness, desired training characteristics, and barriers and facilitators to training. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: Though many workers had received general workplace health and safety training, none reported training about skin exposure and disease prevention. Examples of what the workers perceived as good training included first aid training, while Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System training was felt to be ineffective. Desired content of training for preventing skin exposures included information on the hazards, short- and long-term health impacts, and potential symptoms and personal protective equipment. They desired multi-modal presentation (e.g. in-person and online supplement), hands-on training with visual content and suggested the use of personal stories and negative messaging. Training that could be applied outside the workplace was also valued. Barriers and facilitators to implementation included factors related to the training program itself, the organization, and the regulatory landscape. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can help to shape more effective workplace training programs for skin protection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".