CRICOS No. 00213J

Preventing workplace AOD impairment: using theory and evidence to inform

programme implementationTamzyn Davey, Rod McClure, Jeremy Davey, James Freeman

Safety 2010 World Conference, Thursday 23rd September, 11:30am, Westminster Suite

Definitions

• AODs = alcohol and/or other illicit drugs (marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, & heroin)

• Workplace AOD impairment = using alcohol and or other illicit drugs before or during work (includes ‘hangover’ at work)

Outline

• Context – PhD research programme• Background – workplace impairment• Findings

– Utility of Theory of Planned Behaviour– Relationship between employee AOD use and

workplace impairment• Implications for workplace policy and

programmes

Background & Context• AODs problem in workplace because affects

coordination & judgement - injury/property damage

• Australian industries obligated under OHS legislation to ensure workers’ safety - implementation workplace AOD policies to avoid culpabilities for AOD-related injury/death

• PhD research programme– Evaluating process and impact of workplace AOD

policy in state-wide industry in Australia, to reduce impairment and prevent injury

Findings

• Participants: 1163 employees (98% response rate) from 12 sites across Queensland, Australia

• Data: survey pre-AOD policy implementation eliciting employee:- Demographics- Knowledge- Behavioural Intentions- Deterrence- AOD use- Self-reported behaviour

Findings – Behavioural Intentions and Behaviour

• Theory of Planned Behaviour (TpB)

Attitudes

Subjective Norms BehaviourIntentions

Perceived Behavioural

Control

Utility of the TpB in this context

Predictors ORs CIsAttitudes 1.42 0.76 2.66

Subjective Norms 3.21 1.36 7.54

Perceived Behaviour Control

2.00 1.31 2.92

Predictor ORs CIsBehavioural Intentions 11.28 7.36 17.29

Table: The predictors of behavioural intentions

Table: Predicting behaviour

Table. Coming to work impaired by AODs, and alcohol use (males)

Don’t work impaired

Have worked impaired

Total Chi-square Sig

Alcohol use

(males)AUDIT

Not harmful N 450 44 494 p < .001

% 91.1% 8.9% (-) 100%

Harmful N 205 52 257

% 79.8% 20.2% 100%

Indicates dependency

N 54 48 102

% 52.9% 47.1% (+) 100%

Table. Coming to work impaired by AODs, and cannabis use

Don’t work impaired

Have worked impaired

Total Chi-squareSig

Cannabis use

Never used N 636 77 713 p < .001% 89.2% 10.8% (-) 100%

Used more than year ago

N 270 56 326% 82.8% 17.2% 100%

Used within last year

N 31 19 50% 62.0% 38.0% (+) 100%

Used within last month

N 11 8 19% 57.9% 42.1% (+) 100%

Used within last week

N 9 8 17% 52.9% 47.1% (+) 100%

Used within last 24 hours

N 6 3 9% 66.7% 33.3% 100%

Interpretation

- Not surprising: high levels of drinking or using drugs (esp dependency) would mean coming to work impaired, more likely• But, contrary to literature on workplace AOD

impairment

Implications

• TpB– Understanding mechanism by which behaviour

change occurs in context of workplace AOD impairment

– Targeting TpB constructs may improve impact of workplace programmes in reducing AOD impairment

• AOD use– Reducing general levels of drinking & drug use likely

to result in reduction of workplace AOD impairment

Thank you.www.carrsq.qut.edu.autm.davey@qut.edu.au

Mark your Diaries!International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety

Conference (T2013)August 2013, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre