The impact of school year work on adolescent *development

In recent decades, work has become an increasingly common feature of adolescent life in the United States. Once assumed to be an inherently positive experience for youth, school year work has recently been associated with several adverse effects, especially as the number of hours of weekly work increases. The purpose of this dissertation was to describe the impact of school year work on adolescent development in a sample of high school students from rural South Texas, an area where economically-disadvantaged and Hispanic students are heavily represented.^ The first study described the prevalence and work circumstances of 3,565 10$\rm\sp{th}$ and 12$\rm\sp{th}$ grade students who responded to anonymous surveys conducted in regular classrooms. The overall prevalence of current work was 53%. Prevalence differed by grade, college-noncollege-bound status, and parent education. Fifty percent of employed students worked to support consumer spending.^ The second study examined the effects of four levels of work intensity on the academic, behavioral, social, mental and physical health of students. The following negative effects of intense work were reported: (1) decreased engagement in school, satisfaction with leisure time, and hours of weeknight and weekend sleep, and (2) increased health risk behaviors and psychological stress. The negative effects of intense work differed by gender, grade, ethnicity, but not by parent education.^ The third study described the prevalence of injury in the study population. A dose response effect was observed where increasing hours of weekly work were significantly related to work-related injury. The likelihood of being injured while employed in restaurant, farm/ranch, and construction work was greater than the probability of being injured while working in factory/office/skilled, yard, or retail work when compared to babysitting. Cuts, shocks/burns and sprains were the most common injuries in working teens.^ Students, parents, educators, health professionals and policymakers should continue to monitor the number of weekly hours that students work during the school year. ^

The social construction of infant mortality: From grassroots to medicalization

Infant mortality as a problematic situation has been recognized for some 130 years in one form or another. It has undergone various changes in its empirical dimensions relative to whom we study within the population, what we study--low birth-weight vs. pre-term births--and how we study it--whether demographically or medically. An analysis of the process by which the condition was raised by claims makers as an intolerable situation among America's urban residents reveals that demographic and medical data were sparse. Nonetheless, a judgement about the meaning and significance of the condition was made, and that interpretation led to the promulgation of systems to both document and address the condition as it has come to be defined.^ This investigation depicts the historical context and natural history of infant mortality as one of a number of social problems that came to be defined through the interplay among groups and individuals making claims and how their claims came to the public policy agenda as worthy of collective resources--who won, who lost and why. The process of social definition focuses attention on the claims makers and the ways they contrast the meaning, origins and remedies for this troubling condition. The historical context becomes the frame of reference for understanding the actions of the claims makers and the meaning and significance they attached to the problem.^ We purport that "context" provides a closer reality than disjoined "value free" accounts. Context provides the evidence for the definition, who participated in the process, why and by what means.^ The role of women in the definitional process reveals the differences in approaches utilized by the women of the settlement house reform movement and African-American women working at the grass-roots. Much of the work done by these two groups provided options to the problem's remedy; however, their differences paved the way to our current (principally medically-oriented) definition and its inherent limitations. ^

Prevalence and risk factors of asthma and work -related asthma among U.S. adults: Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988--1994

This cross-sectional analysis of the data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was conducted to determine the prevalence and determinants of asthma and wheezing among US adults, and to identify the occupations and industries at high risk of developing work-related asthma and work-related wheezing. Separate logistic models were developed for physician-diagnosed asthma (MD asthma), wheezing in the previous 12 months (wheezing), work-related asthma and work-related wheezing. Major risk factors including demographic, socioeconomic, indoor air quality, allergy, and other characteristics were analyzed. The prevalence of lifetime MD asthma was 7.7% and the prevalence of wheezing was 17.2%. Mexican-Americans exhibited the lowest prevalence of MD asthma (4.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.2, 5.4) when compared to other race-ethnic groups. The prevalence of MD asthma or wheezing did not vary by gender. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that Mexican-Americans were less likely to develop MD asthma (adjusted odds ratio (ORa) = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45, 0.90) and wheezing (ORa = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.44, 0.69) when compared to non-Hispanic whites. Low education level, current and past smoking status, pet ownership, lifetime diagnosis of physician-diagnosed hay fever and obesity were all significantly associated with MD asthma and wheezing. No significant effect of indoor air pollutants on asthma and wheezing was observed in this study. The prevalence of work-related asthma was 3.70% (95%CI: 2.88, 4.52) and the prevalence of work-related wheezing was 11.46% (95%CI: 9.87, 13.05). The major occupations identified at risk of developing work-related asthma and wheezing were cleaners; farm and agriculture related occupations; entertainment related occupations; protective service occupations; construction; mechanics and repairers; textile; fabricators and assemblers; other transportation and material moving occupations; freight, stock and material movers; motor vehicle operators; and equipment cleaners. The population attributable risk for work-related asthma and wheeze were 26% and 27% respectively. The major industries identified at risk of work-related asthma and wheeze include entertainment related industry; agriculture, forestry and fishing; construction; electrical machinery; repair services; and lodging places. The population attributable risk for work-related asthma was 36.5% and work-related wheezing was 28.5% for industries. Asthma remains an important public health issue in the US and in the other regions of the world. ^