Risk Perception and Fatigue in Port Workers: A Pilot Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Context of the Pilot Study
2.2. Research Design and Setting
2.3. Participants
2.4. Questionnaires and Data Collection
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Quantitative Results
3.2. Qualitative Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sedilla, K.; Matias, A. Prevalence, Severity, and Risk Factors of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Stevedores in a Philippine Break-Bulk Port Terminal. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2017, 601, 90–102. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez, A.; Jense, O.C. Port Workers’ Use of Medical Services in a Maritime Container Terminal in Costa Rica. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 2, 1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Maria, L.; Ledda, C.; Caputi, A.; Mansi, F.; Cannone, E.S.S.; Sponselli, S.; Cavone, D.; Birtolo, F.; Cannizzaro, E.; Ferri, G.M.; et al. Biological Monitoring of Exposure to Benzene in Port Workers. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sjöberg, L.; Moen, B.-E.; Rundmo, T. Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde 2004, 84, 1–39. [Google Scholar]
- Leme, A.; Maia, I. Evaluation of fatigue at work in teachers using modern resources in the classroom. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 4852–4859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornsby, B.W.Y.; Naylor, G.; Bess, F.H. A taxonomy of fatigue concepts and their elation to hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2016, 37, 136S–144S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caldwell, J.A.; Mallis, M.M.; Caldwell, J.L.; Paul, M.A.; Miller, J.C.; Neri, D.F. Aerospace Medical Association Aerospace Fatigue Countermeasures Subcommittee of the Human Factors Committee. Fatigue countermeasures in aviation. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2009, 80, 29–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, M.; Shu, Q.; Huang, H.; Bo, W.; Wang, L.; Wu, H. Associations of occupational stress, workplace violence, and organizational support on chronic fatigue syndrome among nurses. JAN Lead. Glob. Nurs. Res. 2020, 76, 1151–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kwon, S.; Kim, H.; Kim, G.S.; Cho, E. Fatigue and poor sleep are associated with driving risk among Korean occupational drivers. J. Transp. Health 2019, 14, 100572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; Li, H.; Yang, X.; Kong, L.; Luo, X.; Wong, A.Y.L. An automatic and non-invasive physical fatigue assessment method for construction workers. Autom. Constr. 2019, 103, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almeida, M.C.V.; Cezar-Vaz, M.R.; Rocha, L.P.; Cardoso, L.S. Dock worker: Profile of occupational diseases diagnosed in an occupational health service. Acta Paul. Enferm. 2012, 25, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cezar-Vaz, M.R.; Xavier, D.M.; Bonow, C.A.; Mello, M.C.V.A. Ocular manifestations in port workers: Prevalence and associated factors. Acta Paul. Enferm. 2019, 1, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Discover the Port of Pelotas. Available online: https://www.portosrs.com.br/site/comunidade_portuaria/pelotas/conheca_o_porto (accessed on 29 November 2023). (In Portuguese).
- State Ports end 2021 with Record Cargo Movement. Available online: https://www.estado.rs.gov.br/portos-do-estado-encerram-2021-com-recorde-de-movimentacao-de-cargas (accessed on 28 November 2023). (In Portuguese)
- Market—Pelotas. Available online: http://www.portosrs.com.br/site/comunidade_portuaria/pelotas/mercado (accessed on 29 November 2023).
- Brazil. Law No 8.630, 25 February 1993. Provides for the Legal Regime for the Operation of Organized Ports and Port Facilities and Provides Other Measures (PORTS LAW). Available online: https://legislacao.presidencia.gov.br/atos/?tipo=LEI&numero=8630&ano=1993&ato=404ITTU5ENFpWT7de (accessed on 29 November 2023).
- Tanimoto, K. Proposal for a Questionnaire to Assess Risk Perception Concerning a Radioactive Waste Repository. Master’s Dissertation, Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares, São Paulo, Brazil, 2011. Digital Library USP. Available online: https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/85/85131/tde-19122011-164013/en.php (accessed on 29 November 2023). (In Portuguese).
- Chalder, T.; Berelowitz, G.; Pawlikowska, L.; Watts, L.; Wessely, S.; Wright, D.; Wallace, E.P. Development of a fatigue scale. J. Psychosom. Res. 1993, 37, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, H.J.; Costa, E.; Menezes, P.R.; Chalder, T.; Bhugra, D.; Wessely, S. Cross-cultural validation of the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire in Brazilian Primary Care. J. Psychosom. Res. 2007, 62, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vercoulen, J.; Swanink, C.; Fennis, J.; Galama, J.; Meer, J.; Bleijenberg, G. Dimensional assessment of chronic fatigue syndrome. J. Psychosom. Res. 1994, 38, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, M.M.; De Gucht, V.; Gouveia, M.J.P.M.; Cordeiro, A.; Leal, I.S.; Maes, S. Psychometric properties of the portuguese version of the checklist of individual strength (CIS20-P). Psychol. Community Health 2013, 2, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hewlett, S.; Dures, E.; Almeida, C. Measures of fatigue: Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF MDQ), Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF NRS) for Severity, Effect, and Coping, Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), Checklist Individual Strength (CIS20R and CIS8R), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy (Fatigue) (FACIT-F), Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF), Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), Pediatric Quality Of Life (PedsQL) Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Scale, Profile of Fatigue (ProF), Short Form 36 Vitality Subscale (SF-36 VT), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS). Arthritis Care Res. 2011, 63, S263–S286. [Google Scholar]
- Neuendorf, K.A. The Content Analysis Guidebook, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Brazil Ministry of Infrastructure. Master Plan—Port Complex of Rio Grande and Pelotas—Volume 1. 2020. Available online: https://www.portosrs.com.br/site/public/documents/_arquivos_arquivo_2003.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2023).
- Brazil Ministry of Infrastructure. Master plan—Port Complex of Rio Grande and Pelotas—Volume 2. 2020. Available online: https://www.portosrs.com.br/site/public/documents/_arquivos_arquivo_2004.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2023).
- Brazil Ministry of Infrastructure. Master Plan—Port Complex of Rio Grande and Pelotas—Executive Summary. Available online: https://www.portosrs.com.br/site/public/documents/_arquivos_arquivo_2005.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2023).
- Port Authority Board. Internal Regulations of the Board of Authority Port—Pelotas. 2022. Available online: https://www.portosrs.com.br/site/public/uploads/site/cap-arquivos/209.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2023).
- Rio Grande do Sul. Operating Regulation—Organized Port of Pelotas. 2015. Available online: https://www.portosrs.com.br/site/public/documents/Reg.%20Exp.%20Porto%20PEL%20Final2015.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2023).
- Brazil. NR9—Environmental Risk Prevention Programs—PPRA. Available online: https://www.gov.br/trabalho-e-emprego/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/participacao-social/conselhos-e-orgaos-colegiados/comissao-tripartite-partitaria-permanente/normas-regulamentadora/normas-regulamentadoras-vigentes/norma-regulamentadora-no-9-nr-9 (accessed on 9 March 2024).
- Brazil. NR7—Occupational Health Examination Programs—PCMSO. Available online: https://www.braziliannr.com/brazilian-regulatory-standards/nr7-occupational-health-examination-programs-pcmso/ (accessed on 29 November 2023).
- Brazil. NR29—Health and Safety at Docks. Available online: https://www.braziliannr.com/brazilian-regulatory-standards/nr29-health-safety-docks/ (accessed on 29 November 2023).
- Giovannoni, G. Multiple sclerosis related fatigue. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2006, 77, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Glina, D.M.R.; Rocha, L.E.; Batista, M.L.; Mendonça, M.G.V. Saúde mental e trabalho: Uma reflexão sobre o nexo com o trabalho e o diagnóstico, com base na prática. Cad. Saúde Pública 2001, 17, 607–616. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Souza, A.P.; Santos, A.E.G.; Palma, J.N.C.; Silvério, K.A.; Ferreira, L.; Aguiar, M.A.; Moreira, P.C.; Marciano, R.; Senna, R.; Souza, V.R.R.; et al. Qualidade de vida no trabalho utilizando a ginástica laboral. Saúde Em Foco. 2015, 07, 271–281. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
- Peters, R.G.; Covello, V.T.; McCallum, D.B. The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study. Risk Anal. 1997, 17, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vahle, J.L.; Bhat, V.; Wood, C.E. Chapter 17—Risk Management and Communication: Building Trust and Credibility with the Public. In Haschek and Rousseaux’s Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology, 4th ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2023; Volume 2, pp. 629–656. [Google Scholar]
- Earle, T.C. Trust in Risk Management: A Model-Based Review of Empirical Research. Risk Anal. 2010, 30, 541–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kasperson, R.E.; Stallen, P.J.M. Communicating Risks to the Public, 4th ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, C.M.L.; Jensen, O. The paradox of trust: Perceived risk and public compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. In COVID-19: Confronting a New World Risk, 1st ed.; Wardman, J.K., Lofstedt, R., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 1021–1030. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Zhan, S.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y. Occupational hazards to health of port workers. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2016, 23, 584–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Putra, H.A.; Park, K.; Yamashita, F.; Nakagawa, Y.; Murai, T. Cerebral gray matter volume correlates with fatigue and varies between desk workers and non-desk workers. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 951754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ficapal-Cusí, P.; Torrent-Sellens, J.; Palos-Sanchez, P.; González-González, I. The telework performance dilemma: Exploring the role of trust, social isolation and fatigue. Int. J. Manpow. 2023, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palencia-Sánchez, F. Sustainable and healthy work in a changing environment: What is the role and contribution of Public Health? Ciên. Saúde Colet. 2020, 25, 2297–2304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | n = 39 |
---|---|
Age (years), average ± SD | 46.6 ± 10.6 |
Sex, n (%) | |
Male | 33 (84.6) |
Female | 6 (15.4) |
Marital status, n (%) | |
Single/no partner | 17 (43.6) |
Married/with partner | 22 (56.4) |
Race, n (%) | |
White | 34 (87.2) |
Afro-descendent | 5 (12.8) |
Educational level, n (%) | |
Up to high school | 22 (56.4) |
Higher education or more | 17 (43.6) |
Educational level (years), average ± SD | 12.4 ± 2.6 |
Years spent in port work (years), median (P25–P75) | 9 (8–12) |
Income (minimum wage) **, n (%) | |
Up to 3 | 17 (43.6) |
More than 3 | 22 (56.4) |
Other paid activity, n (%) | |
No | 37 (94.9) |
Yes * | 2 (5.1) |
Organization/Authority | Variation | Average ± SD | Min–Max |
---|---|---|---|
Port Superintendent | 1–7 | 5.8 ± 0.8 | 4–7 |
Port Authority Board | 1–7 | 5.5 ± 0.9 | 3–7 |
Unions | 1–7 | 6.4 ± 1.2 | 1–7 |
Port Operators | 1–7 | 5.5 ± 1.1 | 2–7 |
Customs Brokers | 1–7 | 5.0 ± 1.4 | 2–7 |
Port Guard | 1–7 | 6.8 ± 0.6 | 4–7 |
Workforce Management Agencies | 1–7 | 5.3 ± 1.5 | 2–7 |
Port Work Accident Prevention Commission | 1–7 | 5.8 ± 0.7 | 5–7 |
Specialized Service in Safety and Health at Port Work | 1–7 | 5.5 ± 0.9 | 4–7 |
Total Score (Average of the responses) | 1–7 | 5.8 ± 0.5 | 4.1–6.6 |
Item | Variation | Average ± SD | Min–Max |
---|---|---|---|
A precarious work environment would pose risks (chemical, physical, biological, ergonomic/psychosocial, and/or mechanical/accidents) to health. | 1–7 | 6.9 ± 0.4 | 5–7 |
If exposed to one of these risks, it could have consequences for the rest of my life. | 1–7 | 6.7 ± 0.5 | 5–7 |
I would stop working there for fear of these risks. | 1–7 | 2.6 ± 1.8 | 1–7 |
It would be completely unacceptable. | 1–7 | 5.0 ± 1.6 | 1–7 |
It would be shameful. | 1–7 | 4.8 ± 1.9 | 1–7 |
You would be exposed to chemical risks (involving exposure to chemical agents, such as alcohol, gasoline, grease, and solvents). | 1–7 | 4.5 ± 1.8 | 1–7 |
You would be exposed to physical risks (such as noise and dust). | 1–7 | 5.3 ± 1.4 | 1–7 |
You would be exposed to biological risks (such as viruses, bacteria, and parasites). | 1–7 | 4.0 ± 1.8 | 1–6 |
You would be exposed to ergonomic/psychosocial risks (related to lifting and moving weights, inadequate working postures, repetitive movement, and excessive working hours). | 1–7 | 5.0 ± 1.6 | 1–7 |
You would be exposed to mechanical risks/accidents (movement and handling of equipment in operation, falling equipment, tools, and materials, and the probability of explosions and fire). | 1–7 | 4.9 ± 1.6 | 1–7 |
It would cause health problems for all workers. | 1–7 | 6.6 ± 0.8 | 1–7 |
Total score (Average of the responses) | 1–7 | 5.1 ± 0.6 | 3.0–6.4 |
Item | Variation | Median (P25–P75) | Min–Max |
---|---|---|---|
Traffic accident | 1–7 | 2 (1–3) | 1–5 |
Domestic accident | 1–7 | 2 (1–3) | 1–7 |
Alcohol | 1–7 | 1 (1–2) | 1–6 |
Global warming | 1–7 | 3 (2–4) | 1–7 |
Genetically modified food | 1–7 | 1 (1–1) | 1–5 |
Noise | 1–7 | 6 (5–7) | 1–7 |
Natural catastrophe | 1–7 | 3 (1–4) | 1–7 |
Cigarettes | 1–7 | 1.5 (1–3) | 1–7 |
Ground contamination | 1–7 | 3 (1–4) | 1–7 |
Inappropriate diet | 1–7 | 1 (1–3) | 1–7 |
Drugs | 1–7 | 1 (1–1) | 1–7 |
Fire | 1–7 | 4 (3–6) | 1–7 |
Chemical industry | 1–7 | 1 (1–1) | 1–7 |
Obesity | 1–7 | 2 (1–3) | 1–6 |
Air pollution | 1–7 | 4 (2–5) | 1–7 |
Medical radiography | 1–7 | 1 (1–1) | 1–2 |
Chemical waste | 1–7 | 1 (1–1) | 1–3 |
Radioactive waste | 1–7 | 1 (1–1) | 1–2 |
Terrorism | 1–7 | 1 (1–1) | 1–2 |
Nuclear plant | 1–7 | 1 (1–1) | 1–2 |
Total score * (average of the responses) | 1–7 | 2.3 ± 0.4 | 1.5–3.3 |
Item | Individual Risks | Collective Risks | p a |
---|---|---|---|
Median (P25–P75) | Median (P25–P75) | ||
Traffic accident | 2 (1–3) | 4 (3–5) | <0.001 |
Domestic accident | 2 (1–3) | 3 (1–4) | 0.118 |
Alcohol | 1 (1–2) | 2 (1–4) | 0.072 |
Global warming | 3 (2–4) | 4 (3–5) | 0.033 |
Genetically modified food | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.357 |
Noise | 6 (5–7) | 6 (4–6) | 0.341 |
Natural catastrophe | 3 (1–4) | 3 (1–4) | 0.379 |
Cigarettes | 1.5 (1–3) | 3 (2–4) | 0.154 |
Ground contamination | 3 (1–4) | 3 (1–4) | 0.633 |
Inappropriate diet | 1 (1–3) | 3 (1–4) | 0.179 |
Drugs | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–2) | 0.241 |
Fire | 4 (3–6) | 5 (4–6) | 0.367 |
Chemical industry | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.863 |
Obesity | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 0.066 |
Air pollution | 4 (2–5) | 4 (2–5) | 0.706 |
Medical radiography | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.414 |
Chemical waste | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.368 |
Radioactive waste | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.655 |
Terrorism | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.317 |
Nuclear plant | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.317 |
Total score * (average of the responses) | 2.3 ± 0.4 | 2.5 ± 0.6 | 0.007 b |
Scale | n = 39 |
---|---|
Chalder Fatigue Scale, median (P25–P75) | |
Physical score (0–7 points) | 1 (0–2) |
Mental score (0–4 points) | 1 (0–1) |
Total score (0–11 points) | 2 (0–4) |
Chalder Fatigue Scale classification, n (%) | |
No fatigue (<4 points) | 27 (69.2) |
With fatigue (≥4 points) | 12 (30.8) |
Checklist of Individual Strength (CIS), average ± SD | |
Severe fatigue (8–56 points) | 20.4 ± 9.5 |
Classification for CIS for severe fatigue, n (%) | |
No fatigue (<35 points) | 33 (84.6) |
With fatigue (≥35 points) | 6 (15.4) |
Variable | No Fatigue (n = 24) | With Fatigue (n = 15) | p |
---|---|---|---|
Age (years), average ± SD | 48.4 ± 10.0 | 43.7 ± 11.3 | 0.178 a |
Sex, n (%) | 0.180 b | ||
Male | 22 (91.7) | 11 (73.3) | |
Female | 2 (8.3) | 4 (26.7) | |
Marital status, n (%) | 0.491 c | ||
Single/no partner | 12 (50.0) | 5 (33.3) | |
Married/with partner | 12 (50.0) | 10 (66.7) | |
Race, n (%) | 0.631 b | ||
White | 20 (83.3) | 14 (93.3) | |
Afro-descendent | 4 (16.7) | 1 (6.7) | |
Educational level, n (%) | 0.193 c | ||
Up to high school | 16 (66.7) | 6 (40.0) | |
Higher education or more | 8 (33.3) | 9 (60.0) | |
Educational level (years), average ± SD | 11.9 ± 2.4 | 13.3 ± 2.7 | 0.106 a |
Years spent in port work (years), median (P25–P75) | 9 (8–12) | 10 (9–24) | 0.482 d |
Income (minimum wage), n (%) | 0.980 c | ||
Up to 3 | 11 (45.8) | 6 (40.0) | |
More than 3 | 13 (54.2) | 9 (60.0) | |
Other paid activity, n (%) | 1.000 b | ||
No | 23 (95.8) | 14 (93.3) | |
Yes | 1 (4.2) | 1 (6.7) |
Variable | No Fatigue (n = 24) | With Fatigue (n = 15) | p |
---|---|---|---|
Levels of trust in organizations/authorities | |||
Port Superintendent | 5.7 ± 0.9 | 5.9 ± 0.7 | 0.575 a |
Port Authority Board | 5.5 ± 1.0 | 5.6 ± 0.8 | 0.854 a |
Unions | 6.7 ± 0.6 | 5.9 ± 1.7 | 0.045 a |
Port Operators | 5.6 ± 1.2 | 5.4 ± 0.9 | 0.675 a |
Customs Brokers | 4.7 ± 1.3 | 5.6 ± 1.3 | 0.135 a |
Port Guard | 6.9 ± 0.3 | 6.6 ± 0.9 | 0.119 a |
Workforce Management Agencies | 5.6 ± 1.4 | 4.8 ± 1.5 | 0.096 a |
Port Work Accident Prevention Commission | 5.8 ± 0.6 | 5.8 ± 0.9 | 0.962 a |
Specialized Service in Safety and Health at Port Work | 5.4 ± 0.9 | 6.0 ± 0.8 | 0.230 a |
Total Score (Average of the responses) | 5.8 ± 0.5 | 5.7 ± 0.5 | 0.430 a |
Precarious work environment and its risks | |||
A precarious work environment would pose risks (chemical, physical, biological, ergonomic/psychosocial, and/or mechanical/accidents) to my health. | 6.9 ± 0.3 | 6.8 ± 0.6 | 0.393 a |
If exposed to one of these risks, it could have consequences for the rest of my life. | 6.7 ± 0.6 | 6.7 ± 0.5 | 0.884 a |
I would stop working there for fear of these risks. | 2.4 ± 1.8 | 2.9 ± 1.9 | 0.402 a |
It would be completely unacceptable. | 5.4 ± 1.6 | 4.3 ± 1.3 | 0.027 a |
It would be shameful. | 5.3 ± 1.6 | 3.9 ± 2.1 | 0.024 a |
You would be exposed to chemical risks (involving exposure to chemical agents, such as alcohol, gasoline, grease, and solvents). | 4.5 ± 1.8 | 4.6 ± 1.7 | 0.812 a |
You would be exposed to physical risks (such as noise and dust). | 5.5 ± 1.2 | 4.9 ± 1.6 | 0.222 a |
You would be exposed to biological risks (such as viruses, bacteria, and parasites). | 4.0 ± 1.7 | 3.9 ± 1.9 | 0.855 a |
You would be exposed to ergonomic/psychosocial risks (related to lifting and moving weights, inadequate working postures, repetitive movement, and excessive working hours). | 4.9 ± 1.7 | 5.2 ± 1.3 | 0.593 a |
You would be exposed to mechanical risks/accidents (movement and handling of equipment in operation, falling equipment, tools, and materials, and probability of explosions and fire). | 4.9 ± 1.7 | 4.9 ± 1.5 | 0.927 a |
It would cause health problems for all workers. | 6.7 ± 0.6 | 6.3 ± 1.1 | 0.240 a |
Total Score | 5.2 ± 0.6 | 4.9 ± 0.7 | 0.220 a |
Risk Perception Levels | |||
Traffic accident | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 0.638 b |
Domestic accident | 2 (1–4) | 2 (1–3) | 0.853 b |
Alcohol | 1.5 (1–2) | 1 (1–3) | 0.853 b |
Global warming | 3.5 (2–5) | 3 (1–4) | 0.191 b |
Genetically modified food | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–2) | 0.809 b |
Noise | 6 (5–7) | 5 (4–6) | 0.146 b |
Natural catastrophe | 3 (1–5) | 4 (1–4) | 0.721 b |
Cigarettes | 1.5 (1–4) | 1.5 (1–3) | 0.709 b |
Ground contamination | 3 (1–5) | 2 (1–3) | 0.202 b |
Inappropriate diet | 1 (1–3) | 3 (1–3) | 0.323 b |
Drugs | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.687 b |
Fire | 4.5 (3–6) | 4 (3–6) | 0.966 b |
Chemical industry | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–2) | 0.875 b |
Obesity | 1 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 0.484 b |
Air pollution | 4 (3–5) | 3 (2–4) | 0.103 b |
Medical radiography | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.831 b |
Chemical waste | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.721 b |
Radioactive waste | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.831 b |
Terrorism | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.831 b |
Nuclear plant | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.831 b |
Total score | 2.3 ± 0.4 | 2.2 ± 0.3 | 0.256 a |
Variable | Prevalence Ratio (CI 95%) | p |
---|---|---|
Levels of trust in organizations/authorities | ||
Unions | 0.68 (0.58–0.81) | <0.001 |
Workforce Management Agencies | 0.64 (0.49–0.83) | <0.001 |
Precarious work environment and its risks | ||
It would be completely unacceptable. | 0.71 (0.58–0.87) | <0.001 |
Document | Word | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Port worker | Work | Worker | Health | Disease | |
1 [28] | 1.020 | 23 | 00 | 12 | 01 |
2 [29] | 1.288 | 88 | 137 | 99 | 03 |
3 [30] | 316 | 04 | 03 | 09 | 00 |
4 [31] | 04 | 03 | 04 | 00 | 01 |
5 [32] | 95 | 24 | 31 | 25 | 00 |
Total | 2.624 | 235 | 140 | 120 | 04 |
Category | Subcategory | Qualitative Data |
---|---|---|
Infrastructure and organization | Risks to human health due to expansion of the port terminal | “Poor air quality can have negative effects on human health and reduce the quality of life of port workers and the population located around the Port” (p. 46 [25]) |
Lack of its own team for environmental management in the port | “In relation to port facilities [...] they do not have a specialized team to deal with environmental issues in their facilities” (p. 81 [26]) | |
Presence of old equipment used to carry out the work | “[…] in addition to the equipment described, the following are also found at the Port of Pelotas: a GE249 electric crane, two mobile crawler cranes and a front forklift. It should be noted that only the electric crane is in operation” (p. 189 [24]) “Lack of assessment of the situation of port equipment at the Port of Pelotas and inadequate conditions at Warehouse A3: despite the existence of port equipment at the Port of Pelotas, there is no assessment of their situations and, consequently, a defined action plan. Furthermore, according to SUPRG, Warehouse A3 needs repairs so that it can be used for cargo storage and to support operations at the Port of Pelotas” (p. 184 [25]) | |
Waterway access, which does not allow night navigation | “[…] there is a restriction on night navigation for vessels with a LOA of more than 111 m or those carrying dangerous cargo” (p. 59 [26]) | |
Risk prevention | Supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) | “The port administration will provide personal protective equipment [...]. The supply is exclusive to port operations within the organized port area” (p. 55 [28]) |
Regulating, controlling, and monitoring products and services, which involve a risk to public health | “The Agency is also responsible, respecting current legislation, for regulating, controlling and inspecting products and services that involve a risk to public health” (p. 28 [28]) | |
Care for health, hygiene, and safety standards in port work | “Item XI. ensure health, hygiene, and safety standards in port work” (p. 24 [28]) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bonow, C.A.; da Costa, V.Z.; Cardoso, L.S.; Heck, R.M.; Vaz, J.C.; Sant’Anna, C.F.; Cavalheiro, J.T.; de Oliveira, G.L.A.; Cabral, T.S.; Nery, C.H.C.; et al. Risk Perception and Fatigue in Port Workers: A Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030338
Bonow CA, da Costa VZ, Cardoso LS, Heck RM, Vaz JC, Sant’Anna CF, Cavalheiro JT, de Oliveira GLA, Cabral TS, Nery CHC, et al. Risk Perception and Fatigue in Port Workers: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(3):338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030338
Chicago/Turabian StyleBonow, Clarice Alves, Valdecir Zavarese da Costa, Leticia Silveira Cardoso, Rita Maria Heck, Jordana Cezar Vaz, Cynthia Fontella Sant’Anna, Julia Torres Cavalheiro, Gabriela Laudares Albuquerque de Oliveira, Thaynan Silveira Cabral, Carlos Henrique Cardona Nery, and et al. 2024. "Risk Perception and Fatigue in Port Workers: A Pilot Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21, no. 3: 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030338