Safety and Health at Work

  • 제15권2호
  • /
  • Pages.192-199
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2093-7911(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2093-7997(eISSN)
산업안전보건연구원 (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Safety Data Sheets as a Hazard Communication Tool: An Assessment of Suitability and Readability

  • Kevin Ho (School of Occupational and Public Health, Toronto Metropolitan University) ;
  • Thomas Tenkate (School of Occupational and Public Health, Toronto Metropolitan University)
  • 투고 : 2023.06.16
  • 심사 : 2024.01.29
  • 발행 : 2024.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Background: Safety data sheets (SDSs) are hazard communication materials that accompany chemicals/hazardous products in the workplace. Many SDSs contain dense, technical text, which places considerable comprehension demands on workers, especially those with lower literacy skills. The goal of this study was to assess SDSs for readability, comprehensibility, and suitability (i.e., fit to the target audience). Methods: The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool assessed SDSs for suitability and readability. We then amended the SAM tool to further assess SDSs for comprehensibility factors. Both the original and amended SAM tool were used to score 45 randomly selected SDSs for content, literacy demand, graphics, and layout/typography. Results: SDSs performed poorly in terms of readability, suitability, and comprehensibility. The mean readability scores were Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (9.6), Gunning Fog index (11.0), Coleman-Liau index (13.7), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index (10.7), all above the recommended reading level. The original SAM graded SDSs as "not suitable" for suitability and readability. When the amended SAM was used, the mean total SAM score increased, but the SDSs were still considered "not suitable" when adding comprehensibility considerations. The amended SAM tool better identified content-related issues specific to SDSs that make it difficult for a reader to understand the material. Conclusions: In terms of readability, comprehensibility, and suitability, SDSs perform poorly in their primary role as a hazard communication tool, therefore, putting workers at risk. The amended SAM tool could be used when writing SDSs to ensure that the information is more easily understandable for all audiences.

키워드

과제정보

We are grateful for the support and funding provided by the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Programs funded by Toronto Metropolitan University.

참고문헌

  1. Nicol AM, Hurrell AC, Wahyuni D, McDowall W, Chu W. Accuracy, comprehensibility, and use of material safety data sheets: a review. Am J Ind Med 2008 Nov;51(11):861-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20613
  2. WHMIS.org [Internet]. Hamilton: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety [cited 2022 May 1]. Available from: https://whmis.org/static/about.html.
  3. Bouchard C. Literacy and hazard communication: ensuring workers understand the information they receive. AAOHN J 2007 Jan;55(1):18-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507990705500103
  4. Beach J. The problem with material safety data sheets. Occup Med (Lond) 2002 Mar 1;52(2):67-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/52.2.67
  5. Phillips CC, Wallace BC, Hamilton CB, Pursley RT, Petty GC, Bayne CK. The efficacy of material safety data sheets and worker acceptability. J Saf Res 1999 Jun 1;30(2):113-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00005-5
  6. Sattler B, Lippy B, Jordan T. Hazard communication: a review of the science underpinning the art of communication for health and safety. [Internet]. Washington: US-DOL OHSA Report. 1997 [cited 2022 May 1]. Available from: https://repository.usfca.edu/nursing_fac/74.
  7. Ratzan SC. Health literacy: communication for the public good. Health Promot Int 2001 Jun 1;16(2):207-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/16.2.207
  8. Nguyen TH, Paasche-Orlow MK, McCormack LA. The state of the science of health literacy measurement. Stud Health Technol Inform 2017;240:17-33. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-170827
  9. Urstad KH, Andersen MH, Larsen MH, Borge CR, Helseth S, Wahl AK. Definitions and measurement of health literacy in health and medicine research: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2022 Feb 14;12(2):e056294.
  10. Osborne RH, Batterham RW, Elsworth GR, Hawkins M, Buchbinder R. The grounded psychometric development and initial validation of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Public Health 2013 Jul 16;13(1):658.
  11. Sorensen K, Van den Broucke S, Pelikan JM, Fullam J, Doyle G, Slonska Z, Kondilis B, Stoffels V, Osborne RH, Brand H. Measuring health literacy in populations: illuminating the design and development process of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q). BMC Public Health 2013 Oct 10;13(1):948.
  12. OECD & Statistics Canada. Learning a living: first results of the adult literacy and life skills survey [Internet]. OECD Publishing. 2005 [cited 2022 May 1]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/89-603-X.
  13. Campbell A. All signs point to yes literacy's impact on workplace health and safety (Publication No: 08-279). [Internet]. The Conference Board of Canada. 2008. Report No.: 08e279. [cited 2022 May 1]. Available from: https://www.conferenceboard.ca/temp/b85c2f04-a792-4f78-9688-70fac1e86ca9/08-279_AllSignsPointtoYes.pdf.
  14. LeBrun M, DiMuzio J, Beauchamp B, Reid S, Hogan V. Evaluating the health literacy burden of Canada's public advisories: a comparative effectiveness study on clarity and readability. Drug Saf 2013 Dec;36(12):1179-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-013-0117-8
  15. Klare GR. Assessing readability. Read Res Q 1974;10(1):62-102. https://doi.org/10.2307/747086
  16. Kher A, Johnson S, Griffith R. Readability assessment of online patient education material on congestive heart failure. Adv Prev Med 2017;2017:9780317.
  17. Doak CC, Doak L, Root J. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company; 1996212p.
  18. Helitzer D, Hollis C, Cotner J, Oestreicher N. Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control 2009 Jan;16(1):70-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/107327480901600111
  19. SDS Database [Internet]. Hamilton: Canadian Centre for occupational health and safety [cited 2022 May 1]. Available from: https://www.ccohs.ca/products/msds/ 2022; 2022.
  20. Betschart P, Abt D, Schmid HP, Viktorin P, Langenauer J, Zumstein V. Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires. Investig Clin Urol 2018 Sep;59(5):297-304. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2018.59.5.297
  21. Zarcadoolas C. The simplicity complex: exploring simplified health messages in a complex world. Health Promot Int 2011 Sep 1;26(3):338-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daq075
  22. Readable [Internet]. Horsham: added bytes [cited 2022 May 1]. Available from: https://readable.com/ 2022; 2022.
  23. Laura H, Adrienne E, Herbers R. An evaluation of engineered nanomaterial safety data sheets for safety and health information post implementation of the revised hazard communication standard. J Chem Health Saf 2019 Apr;26(2):12-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2018.10.002
  24. WHMIS.org Safety Data Sheet Compliance Tool [Internet]. Hamilton: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety [cited 2022 May 1]. Available from: https://whmis.org/sds/.
  25. Sinyai C, MacArthur B, Roccotagliata T. Evaluating the readability and suitability of construction occupational safety and health materials designed for workers. Am J Ind Med 2018 Oct;61(10):842-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22901
  26. Smith CA, Hetzel S, Dalrymple P, Keselman A. Beyond readability: investigating coherence of clinical text for consumers. J Med Internet Res 2011 Dec 2;13(4):e104.
  27. McNamara DS. Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Can J Exp Psychol 2001 Mar;55(1):51-62. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087352
  28. Meyer BJF. Text coherence and readability. Top Lang Disord 2003 Sep;23(3):204-24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200307000-00007
  29. Evaluation of the workplace hazardous products program 2014-15 to 2018-19 [Internet] [cited 2022 May 1]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/transparency/corporate-management-reporting/evaluation/evaluation-workplace-harzardous-products-program-2014-2015-2018-2019.html 2020; 2020.
  30. European Chemicals Agency. Report on improvement of quality of SDS: WG Joint initiative ECHA Forum e ECHA ASOs on improvement of the quality of SDS: forum [Internet]. LU: European Union. 2019 [cited 2022 May 1]. Available from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2823/005933.
  31. Perrin B. How does literacy affect the health of Canadians? a profile paper. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 1998. 22 p.
  32. De Jesus-Rivas M, Conlon HA, Burns C. The impact of language and culture diversity in occupational safety. Workplace Health Saf 2016 Jan;64(1):24-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079915607872
  33. Bouchard C. Literacy and hazard communication: ensuring workers understand the information they receive. AAOHN J 2007 Jan;55(1):18-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507990705500103
  34. Guner MD, Ekmekci PE. Health literacy level of casting factory workers and its relationship with occupational health and safety training. Workplace Health Saf 2019 Sep;67(9):452-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079919843306
  35. Pejtersen JH, Holt H. Literacy and risk of occupational injury. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2022 Dec;95(10):1971-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-022-01898-w
  36. Saari J, Bedard S, Dufort V, Hryniewiecki J, Theriault G. Successful training strategies to implement a workplace hazardous materials information system. An evaluation study at 80 plants. J Occup Med 1994 May;36(5):569-74.
  37. Tuijn S, Janssens F, Robben P, van den Bergh H. Reducing interrater variability and improving health care: a meta-analytical review. J Eval Clin Pract 2012 Aug;18(4):887-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01705.x