Att 8_Peer Review CmetsResp

Attachment 8: Peer Review Comments with Responses

Reviewer 1:

Reviewer’s Name

Donald S. Bloswick Ph.D., P.E., CPE

Reviewer’s Title

Donald S. Bloswick Ph.D., P.E., CPE

Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering

Adjunct Professor, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine

Adjunct Professor, Division of Physical Therapy

Adjunct Professor, Division of Occupational Therapy

Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering

Director Ergonomics and Safety Program, Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health

Reviewer’s Contact Information

University of Utah

Department of Mechanical Engineering

50 South Central Campus Drive, Room 2110

Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9208

bloswick@eng.utah.edu

(801)-581-4163

Reviewer’s Areas of Expertise:

1) Ergonomics and Occupational Biomechanics

2) Safety

3) Rehabilitation Ergonomics

Review #1:

From: Donald Bloswick [mailto:donbloswick@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 1:15 PM
To: Forrester, Christy L. (CDC/NIOSH/OD)
Subject: Re: NIOSH protocol review request

As with most NIOSH work, the survey protocol and survey instrument itself are both well done. I can add little and my comments are quite minor...but here goes.

PROTOCOL:

----------------------------------------------------

Page 2 = "Drowning due to vessels sinking and falls overboard is the leading cause

of death for commercial fishermen."

I'm not sure of the importance of drowning due to vessels sinking. Seems like that would be more an immersion suit issue.

----------------------------------------------------

Page 2 = "To this day, the problem persists. From 2000 to 2012, 191 fishermen drowned as a result

of falling overboard (NIOSH, 2013)."

It seems that "persists" is a major understatement since 71 commercial fishermen drowned due to falls overboard in the 15 years between 1990 and 2005 (4.7/year) and 191 drowned in the 12 years between 2000-2012 (15.9/year).

----------------------------------------------------

Page 5 = "The baseline data collection provided insights, such as these, to inform the development of

communication intervention efforts to improve PFD use among fishermen,"

The sentence should end with a period.

----------------------------------------------------

Page 5 =  "Information on commercial fishermen working in Alaska had never been collected in the past and has not been

re-evaluated since the original NIOSH survey."

This MIGHT be a little better stated as "Information on commercial fishermen working in Alaska had never been collected prior to the original NIOSH survey and has not been re-evaluated since the original NIOSH survey." or  "Information on commercial fishermen working in Alaska had never been collected prior to, and has not been re-evaluated since, the original NIOSH survey." Actually in re-reading, your sentence might be better....

----------------------------------------------------

Page 13 "In each of the two communities in Alaska (Dutch Harbor and Naknek) researchers will

complete surveys one week prior the start of each fishery."

Should be "In each of the two communities in Alaska (Dutch Harbor and Naknek) researchers will

complete surveys one week prior to the start of each fishery."

----------------------------------------------------

Page 13 = "This method will be followed at each site, once at each fishery per fishing season (2 sites, once

per season, 2 seasons -- 2014 and 2015)." 

I know its clear elsewhere but perhaps this  "This method will be followed at each fishery site (100 surveys at each site), once per fishing season (2 sites x 2 seasons (2014 and 2015) = 400 total)."

----------------------------------------------------

SURVEY:

Question 25C has a checkbox after the table.

NIOSH Response to Reviewer #1:

From: Forrester, Christy L. (CDC/NIOSH/OD)
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:14 AM
To: 'Donald Bloswick'
Subject: RE: NIOSH protocol review request

Good morning, Dr. Bloswick:

Thank you for your response.  I’ve read your comments and suggestions and intend to incorporate each of them in the final document as they will most certainly improve the quality and clarity of the protocol.

Hope you are having a wonderful week! 

Thanks again.  Your willingness to review with such short notice is greatly appreciated!

Christy

______________________________________________________________________________

Reviewer 2:

Reviewer’s Name

Paula Cullenberg

Reviewer’s Title

Paula Cullenberg

Director, Alaska Sea Grant College Program

University of Alaska

Reviewer’s Contact Information

Alaska Sea Grant College Program
University of Alaska Fairbanks
1007 W 3rd Ave, Suite 100
Anchorage, AK 99501
paula.cullenberg@alaska.edu

(907) 274-9692

Reviewer’s Areas of Expertise:

1) Leadership of Alaska’s statewide marine extension program.

2) Over 20 years of personal commercial fishing experience in Bristol Bay.

Review #2

From: Paula Cullenberg [mailto:paula.cullenberg@alaska.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 4:08 PM
To: Forrester, Christy L. (CDC/NIOSH/OD)
Subject: Re: NIOSH protocol review request

1. Are you planning to survey just drift gillnet fishermen or setnet gillnet fishermen in Naknek? In Bristol Bay there are about 2,600 permit holders. 1,800 are drift fishermen operating out of 32 foot vessels (I am assuming that the 4,679 found in Table V refers to an estimate of 2 crewmembers and 1 skipper per drift boat). The 800 setnetters often operate from open skiffs with outboards in harsh weather (speaking from personal experience). They all need to have PFDs on. I recommend that you add set gillnet and drift gillnet to your survey.

2. One thing that you might consider is that the community of Naknek has a very strong influx of permit holders and crew from outside of the region for the fishing season. Bristol Bay permit holders come from 48 states in the US and about 74% of permit holders do not live in the Bristol Bay watershed communities. This will likely influence your results. Dillingham has a larger population of resident permit holders. You might consider asking a question – do you live in the Bristol Bay region full time, do you live in Alaska, do you live outside of Alaska? That would be a useful comparison to look at re: PFD acceptance. Local residents may have different access to information – i.e. certainly no billboards, but a higher dependence on radio for example. Lower use of internet is likely.  Are the commercial fishing deaths in Bristol Bay related to residence?  You do ask if someone is an Alaska Native, but there are many Alaska Natives who are not local residents - they may live in Anchorage or outside of Alaska.  

3. In Unalaska (real name of the community where Dutch Harbor is located – in our state we generally use Unalaska), it looks like you are only surveying crab fishermen. There are no gillnet operators in the Unalaska region (other than a couple of herring gillnetters). You might just split the survey into a Bristol Bay one and an Unalaska/Dutch Harbor one. Then you could delete a number of the questions – i.e. no salmon or herring in Bristol Bay in the winter, just ice. Length of vessel would be of interest if you are in Unalaska. In Bristol Bay, all drift gillnet vessels are the same size (32’) and all setnet vessels are open skiffs at 18-24’ or so.

4. In Bristol Bay, which I am familiar with – “falling overboard” is probably less likely than “going overboard.” i.e. you might get caught in an anchor line or a net reel and be pitched overboard. You might get knocked overboard by waves. Maybe consider changing that verb to be more inclusive or define it.  While NIOSH considers them all "falls" I guess I would think, well, I didn't "fall" overboard - I was dragged overboard or knocked overboard. 

5.  Questions 15… “on deck” – if you decide to include setnetters, you probably would not say “on deck” since they are in an open, exposed skiff the entire time they are out there. You could just say “wear a PFD”

Hope these comments are helpful. I will look forward to seeing your public information campaign. 

NIOSH Response to Reviewer #2:

From: Forrester, Christy L. (CDC/NIOSH/OD)
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:25 PM
To: 'Paula Cullenberg'
Subject: RE: NIOSH protocol review request

Dear Ms. Cullenberg,

Thank you for your insightful review of our protocol.  You make an excellent point regarding set gillnet fishermen.  As the next stage in an ongoing project, this survey is intended to serve, in part, as a follow up to the initial PFD survey (conducted in 2008-2009).  We hope to gauge whether or not there have been shifts in PFD perceptions and/or use over time among previously sampled populations.  As such, our sampling frame for this project is limited to drift gillnet fishermen.  We do, however, recognize the seriousness and importance of the risks faced by set gillnet fishermen and certainly hope to work with them in the future to improve the use of PFDs among all gillnet fishermen.

We appreciate your suggestion with regard to residence.  Local versus non-local (such as those living in the Bristol Bay watershed communities versus elsewhere in Alaska) is an informative distinction that would not have been captured in the survey’s current form.  We will expand the state of residence question to include primary city of residence.

Thank you for pointing out the Unalaska distinction.  As a native Ohioan currently living in Washington, DC, I very much appreciate the inside knowledge.

It is true that a few of the survey questions are not equally informative across both fishing populations.  As you mentioned, for example, it is likely that the answer to the question about length of vessel will be similar (if not the same) for drift gillnetters and more varied among crabbers.  In crafting the follow up survey, we gave a great deal of thought to this issue.  In fact, based on the analysis of the initial PFD survey data, questions deemed inconsequential were not included in the follow up survey.  For consistency and comparison, however, we believe that it is important to remain true to the original survey protocol and administer a single survey to both populations.

We agree with the need to clarify “falling overboard.”  It is quite possible that a fisherman, as you suggested, might not consider being caught by equipment and pitched overboard or knocked overboard by waves as a “fall.”  We will insert more inclusive/descriptive text below the section heading to describe what we mean by falling overboard.

Thanks again for your review!  Your comments were very helpful.