Young workers' perceptions about occupational carcinogens.
Robert T Duffy, Anita Brobbey, Ela Rydz and 3 others
Young workers in Canada and the UK correctly identified fewer than half of 11 known occupational carcinogens.
The most common reason for not wearing PPE was believing they were not at risk.
Key findings
1Respondents correctly identified fewer than half of 11 known occupational carcinogens on average (mean score 4.93/11, 44.8%). Only 50 respondents achieved a perfect score. The carcinogens most frequently misidentified (incorrect responses >50%) were arsenic, benzene, diesel engine exhaust, formaldehyde, radon, silica dust, and wood dust.
2The most common reason young workers gave for not using PPE was believing they were not at risk (54.3%). About half (50.3%) agreed they had been properly trained to use PPE, while 52.5% felt they lacked access to controls beyond PPE to reduce exposure.
3In focus groups, the most cited barriers to PPE use were workplace culture and discomfort (29.2% each), followed by time/convenience (16.7%). The most frequent suggestions for reducing exposures were better or more PPE (24.1%) and addressing tasks and hazards (19.0%).
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
No a priori sample size was calculated; the target of roughly 2000 respondents was set by convenience. The survey instrument was built from prior validated tools but did not itself undergo a rigorous validation process. Online recruitment via Prolific may not represent young workers across all industries, and no data were collected on socio-economic status, education, or marginalized populations. Several occupational categories had very small samples (NOC 8: 16 participants; NOC 9: 21), which limits how representative the subgroup results are. The study measured knowledge and self-reported practices only; it did not assess whether respondents were actually exposed to carcinogens in their workplaces. Data were collected during the pandemic, when mask mandates were in force in both countries, which may have shifted how workers thought about PPE.
Declared interests
Funded by the Derrick Thompson fund, part of the O'Brien Institute for Public Health Catalyst Funds (Grant # 201907CTF_CPET_1). No conflicts of interest declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the low carcinogen scores as proof that these workers are being exposed to carcinogens. The study measured knowledge and self-reported practices only and did not assess actual workplace exposure. PPE responses may also be shifted by the pandemic-era mask mandates that were in force in both countries during data collection.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →