Abstract No:
1677
Abstract Type:
Student Poster
Authors:
K Babik1, M Petros2
Institutions:
1University Illinois Chicago, Baltimore, MD, 2University Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL
Presenter:
Kelsey Babik
University Illinois Chicago
Faculty Advisor:
Michael Petros
University Illinois Chicago
Description:
This study systematically and empirically evaluates perceptions of personal protective equipment (PPE) equity within the standards development ecosystem to understand how to improve PPE protections for all workers. Specifically, it seeks to: assess how industrial hygiene (IH) / occupational and environmental health and safety (OEHS) professionals understand PPE equity; examine whether perceptions differ by involvement in PPE standards development; identify where equity is perceived to be incorporated across the standards lifecycle; explore perceived structural and representation barriers in standards governance; and evaluate how standards development processes align with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) PPE equity framework.
Situation/Problem:
Ill-fitting PPE places workers at increased risk for occupational injury and illness. The current PPE standards system has systematically been shaped by practices that have not fully accounted for diversity in body types, abilities, or cultural and religious needs. Furthermore, standards development committees remain dominated by manufacturers and industry representation, with Western-centric views on work and culture. Despite many standards development organizations (SDOs) using consensus-driven, iterative processes that encourage the inclusion of numerous valueholders in standards activities, there remains limited input from workers and those most likely to use PPE. This gap in representation and decision-making leads to a lack of accountability and slow adaptation of standards to meet the needs of a diverse workforce.
In response, NIOSH's National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL) began an initiative investigating equitable PPE protections (i.e., PPE equity or equitable PPE) for workers. NIOSH developed a framework to identify and address issues surrounding PPE equity across multiple areas of IH/OEHS, including in standards development. Plans for NIOSH collaborations with numerous valueholders to apply this framework were halted in 2025. While NIOSH's framework remains untested, it still holds the potential to become actionable tool for standards committees.
As advocates for worker health and safety, and as subject matter experts on anticipating, recognizing, evaluating, and controlling workplace environmental stressors, IH/OEHS professionals are in a unique position to fill this gap. Yet prior work in this area has focused primarily on PPE design, fit, and distribution inequalities. There is limited empirical research examining how those involved in PPE standards development activities: understand PPE equity; view equity in PPE standards; and see the future of PPE standards development through an equitable lens. Furthermore, NIOSH's equitable PPE framework has yet to be evaluated as a tool to increase equity in the standards development process.
Methods:
This study used an online, mixed-methods survey to study the perceptions of PPE equity held among IH/OEHS professionals. It combined a quantitative cross-sectional approach with a qualitative thematic analysis. A total of 95 IH/OEHS professionals participated. Online survey data was collected using UIC-licensed Qualtrics® and analyzed using STATA™ (quantitative data) and Excel® (qualitative data).
Analysis on quantitative data included descriptive (i.e., frequencies and proportions) and inferential (i.e., tests of independence, effect estimates, logistical regression) statistics as well as between and within group comparisons to examine differences in conceptual understandings and views of PPE equity and to examine discrepancies between perceived and desired inclusion of equity across stages of the PPE standards development lifecycle.
Qualitative analysis included reflexive and codebook thematic analysis to identify common patterns, initial themes (convergent and divergent), and discrepancies across the data.
Results / Conclusions:
The survey showed that the predominantly White, non-Hispanic, U.S.-based IH/OEHS sample spanned all career stages and roles, with involvement in PPE standards development concentrated among more experienced professionals and those holding multiple roles. Senior and emeritus practitioners were 4–10 times more likely than early-career respondents to participate in standards work (p= 0.03), and holding 2–3 roles significantly increased the likelihood of involvement (p< 0.00).
Despite these structural differences, respondents shared a consistent, risk-centered definition of PPE equity (i.e., no statistically significant difference), rejecting "same PPE for everyone" in favor of tailoring PPE to individual worker needs and vulnerabilities, with exposure risk prioritized and economic status ranked low in distribution decisions. This was supported by results from the thematic analysis. Across groups, there were no statistically significant differences in conceptual definitions of PPE equity or in alignment with NIOSH's PPE Equity Framework, and nearly all agreed that proper fit is fundamental to equity.
Involvement in standards development predicted perceptions of a shared vision of equity and equity's prioritization. Those involved were more likely to believe there is no common vision for PPE equity (p= 0.01) and that equity is not prioritized in standards logistics (p= 0.03), committee composition (p< 0.01), or standard lifecycle stages (p< 0.05). Both groups identified similar structural barriers, including limited demographic and occupational diversity (p= 0.07), lack of representation of those most affected (p= 0.06), and logistical and financial obstacles to participation (p= 0.05). Significant gaps emerged between who should be on standards committees versus who actually participates, with employers (p< 0.01) and manufacturers (p< 0.01) perceived as most represented and workers notably underrepresented.
Respondents agreed that equity should be embedded across the standards development lifecycle, particularly in pre-development and development phases, yet those involved reported equity is not incorporated to the extent desired at key steps such as needs identification, prioritization, drafting, and voting (p< 0.05). The NIOSH PPE equity framework is well aligned with the values of both groups and offers a promising foundation for reform, yet elements related to availability and knowledge were consistently rated lower in practice than other dimensions. This suggests equity is more strongly endorsed as an ideal than systematically operationalized in current PPE standards and their development.
Core Competencies:
Personal Protective Equipment
Secondary Core Competencies:
Health Regulations
Total Worker Health ®
Choose at least one (1), and up to five, (5) keywords from the following list. These selections will optimize your presentation's search results for attendees.
Personal protective equipment
Based on the information that will be presented during your proposed session, please indicate the targeted audience practice level: (select one)
Practitioner: Practitioner is a job title given to persons in various occupational fields who are trained to assist professionals but are not themselves licensed or certified at a professional level by a certification body recognized by the National Accreditation Recognition (NAR) Committee of IOHA. The IH/OH practitioner performs tasks requiring significant knowledge and skill in the IH/OH field, such as conducting worker exposure monitoring and, in some cases, may even function independently of a professional IH/OH but may not be involved in the breadth of IH/OH practice nor have the level of responsibility of a professional IH/OH certified by examination.
The IH/OH practitioner requires a certain level of education that can be obtained from an accredited university or equivalent. Additional training in specific skill sets that provide additional career paths to the IH/OH practitioner can also be obtained. IH/OH practitioners may also serve as team leaders or project managers.
Was this session organized by an AIHA Technical Committee, Special Interest Group, Working Group, Advisory Group or other AIHA project Team?
No
Are worker exposure data and/or results of worker exposure data analysis presented?
No
How will this help advance the science of IH/OH?
Standards offer a “common language” for science, technology, medicine, and economies. By not including considerations for all workers, the “language” of PPE standards does not have a way to incorporate the needs of a diverse workforce into the standards development process, leaving many US workers vulnerable to workplace injury and illness.
Examining the perceptions of those in the IH/OEHS profession, particularly comparing those involved in standards activities to those not involved, provides us with a better understanding of where equity is considered, where it is not, and where it should be in order for us to protect the health and safety of all US workers.
Most importantly, this work shows that the IH/OEHS profession widely agrees on the definition of PPE equity and that it values the framework put forth by NIOSH’s NPPTL to address equitable protections in PPE standards. This project represents the first step in identifying how to operationalize NIOSH/NPPTL’s vision for PPE equity which can then be taken up and carried by other similar suited organizations like AIHA. This is critical as NIOSH is in many ways limited in working on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Have you presented this information before?
No
I have read and agree to these guidelines.
Yes