Indicators to assess physiological heat strain – Part 2: Delphi exercise

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Indicators to assess physiological heat strain – Part 2: Delphi exercise. / Ioannou, Leonidas G; Dinas, Petros C; Notley, Sean R; Gofa, Flora; Gourzoulidis, George A; Brearley, Matt; Epstein, Yoram; Havenith, George; Sawka, Michael N; Bröde, Peter; Mekjavic, Igor B; Kenny, Glen P; Bernard, Thomas E; Nybo, Lars; Flouris, Andreas D.

I: Temperature, Bind 9, Nr. 3, 2022, s. 263-273.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Ioannou, LG, Dinas, PC, Notley, SR, Gofa, F, Gourzoulidis, GA, Brearley, M, Epstein, Y, Havenith, G, Sawka, MN, Bröde, P, Mekjavic, IB, Kenny, GP, Bernard, TE, Nybo, L & Flouris, AD 2022, 'Indicators to assess physiological heat strain – Part 2: Delphi exercise', Temperature, bind 9, nr. 3, s. 263-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2022.2044738

APA

Ioannou, L. G., Dinas, P. C., Notley, S. R., Gofa, F., Gourzoulidis, G. A., Brearley, M., Epstein, Y., Havenith, G., Sawka, M. N., Bröde, P., Mekjavic, I. B., Kenny, G. P., Bernard, T. E., Nybo, L., & Flouris, A. D. (2022). Indicators to assess physiological heat strain – Part 2: Delphi exercise. Temperature, 9(3), 263-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2022.2044738

Vancouver

Ioannou LG, Dinas PC, Notley SR, Gofa F, Gourzoulidis GA, Brearley M o.a. Indicators to assess physiological heat strain – Part 2: Delphi exercise. Temperature. 2022;9(3):263-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2022.2044738

Author

Ioannou, Leonidas G ; Dinas, Petros C ; Notley, Sean R ; Gofa, Flora ; Gourzoulidis, George A ; Brearley, Matt ; Epstein, Yoram ; Havenith, George ; Sawka, Michael N ; Bröde, Peter ; Mekjavic, Igor B ; Kenny, Glen P ; Bernard, Thomas E ; Nybo, Lars ; Flouris, Andreas D. / Indicators to assess physiological heat strain – Part 2: Delphi exercise. I: Temperature. 2022 ; Bind 9, Nr. 3. s. 263-273.

Bibtex

@article{80ad14a25a874ff59be980a23ec241b0,
title = "Indicators to assess physiological heat strain – Part 2: Delphi exercise",
abstract = "In a series of three companion papers published in this Journal, we identify and validate the available thermal stress indicators (TSIs). In this second paper of the series, we identified the criteria to consider when adopting a TSI to protect individuals who work in the heat, and we weighed their relative importance using a Delphi exercise with 20 experts. Two Delphi iterations were adequate to reach consensus within the expert panel (Cronbach{\textquoteright}s α = 0.86) for a set of 17 criteria with varying weights that should be considered when adopting a TSI to protect individuals who work in the heat. These criteria considered physiological parameters such as core/skin/mean body temperature, heart rate, and hydration status, as well as practicality, cost effectiveness, and health guidance issues. The 17 criteria were distributed across three occupational health-and-safety pillars: (i) contribution to improving occupational health (55% of total importance), (ii) mitigation of worker physiological strain (35.5% of total importance), and (iii) cost-effectiveness (9.5% of total importance). Three criteria [(i) relationship of a TSI with core temperature, (ii) having categories indicating the level of heat stress experienced by workers, and (iii) using its heat stress categories to provide recommendations for occupational safety and health] were considered significantly more important when selecting a TSI for protecting individuals who work in the heat, accumulating 37.2 percentage points. These 17 criteria allow the validation and comparison of TSIs that presently exist as well as those that may be developed in the coming years.",
keywords = "Consensus, Criteria, Heat indices, Heat strain, Hyperthermia, Labor, Occupational, Temperature, Thermal indices, Work",
author = "Ioannou, {Leonidas G} and Dinas, {Petros C} and Notley, {Sean R} and Flora Gofa and Gourzoulidis, {George A} and Matt Brearley and Yoram Epstein and George Havenith and Sawka, {Michael N} and Peter Br{\"o}de and Mekjavic, {Igor B} and Kenny, {Glen P} and Bernard, {Thomas E} and Lars Nybo and Flouris, {Andreas D}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.1080/23328940.2022.2044738",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "263--273",
journal = "Temperature",
issn = "2332-8940",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indicators to assess physiological heat strain – Part 2: Delphi exercise

AU - Ioannou, Leonidas G

AU - Dinas, Petros C

AU - Notley, Sean R

AU - Gofa, Flora

AU - Gourzoulidis, George A

AU - Brearley, Matt

AU - Epstein, Yoram

AU - Havenith, George

AU - Sawka, Michael N

AU - Bröde, Peter

AU - Mekjavic, Igor B

AU - Kenny, Glen P

AU - Bernard, Thomas E

AU - Nybo, Lars

AU - Flouris, Andreas D

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - In a series of three companion papers published in this Journal, we identify and validate the available thermal stress indicators (TSIs). In this second paper of the series, we identified the criteria to consider when adopting a TSI to protect individuals who work in the heat, and we weighed their relative importance using a Delphi exercise with 20 experts. Two Delphi iterations were adequate to reach consensus within the expert panel (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) for a set of 17 criteria with varying weights that should be considered when adopting a TSI to protect individuals who work in the heat. These criteria considered physiological parameters such as core/skin/mean body temperature, heart rate, and hydration status, as well as practicality, cost effectiveness, and health guidance issues. The 17 criteria were distributed across three occupational health-and-safety pillars: (i) contribution to improving occupational health (55% of total importance), (ii) mitigation of worker physiological strain (35.5% of total importance), and (iii) cost-effectiveness (9.5% of total importance). Three criteria [(i) relationship of a TSI with core temperature, (ii) having categories indicating the level of heat stress experienced by workers, and (iii) using its heat stress categories to provide recommendations for occupational safety and health] were considered significantly more important when selecting a TSI for protecting individuals who work in the heat, accumulating 37.2 percentage points. These 17 criteria allow the validation and comparison of TSIs that presently exist as well as those that may be developed in the coming years.

AB - In a series of three companion papers published in this Journal, we identify and validate the available thermal stress indicators (TSIs). In this second paper of the series, we identified the criteria to consider when adopting a TSI to protect individuals who work in the heat, and we weighed their relative importance using a Delphi exercise with 20 experts. Two Delphi iterations were adequate to reach consensus within the expert panel (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) for a set of 17 criteria with varying weights that should be considered when adopting a TSI to protect individuals who work in the heat. These criteria considered physiological parameters such as core/skin/mean body temperature, heart rate, and hydration status, as well as practicality, cost effectiveness, and health guidance issues. The 17 criteria were distributed across three occupational health-and-safety pillars: (i) contribution to improving occupational health (55% of total importance), (ii) mitigation of worker physiological strain (35.5% of total importance), and (iii) cost-effectiveness (9.5% of total importance). Three criteria [(i) relationship of a TSI with core temperature, (ii) having categories indicating the level of heat stress experienced by workers, and (iii) using its heat stress categories to provide recommendations for occupational safety and health] were considered significantly more important when selecting a TSI for protecting individuals who work in the heat, accumulating 37.2 percentage points. These 17 criteria allow the validation and comparison of TSIs that presently exist as well as those that may be developed in the coming years.

KW - Consensus

KW - Criteria

KW - Heat indices

KW - Heat strain

KW - Hyperthermia

KW - Labor

KW - Occupational

KW - Temperature

KW - Thermal indices

KW - Work

U2 - 10.1080/23328940.2022.2044738

DO - 10.1080/23328940.2022.2044738

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 36211947

AN - SCOPUS:85127388655

VL - 9

SP - 263

EP - 273

JO - Temperature

JF - Temperature

SN - 2332-8940

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 303587353