A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^

The association of nonfatal occupational injuries with non -work -related morbidity

A case-referent study of occupational injuries sustained by 474 workers employed in the heavy equipment machinery industry over a two year period, 1985-1986, was undertaken to examine the association of occupational injuries with non-work-related morbidity. Its specific aim was to evaluate whether employees who experienced a work-related injury had an increased prevalence of non-work-related morbidity, specifically for injuries, cardiovascular disease, mental disorders, all other disease outcomes and total morbidity, compared to employees who did not experience a work-related injury. In order to determine the direction of the relationship, the use of the previous calendar year was employed to assess non-work-related morbidity. A secondary objective of the study was the evaluation of the utility of two existing data sources, workers' compensation and group health insurance claims, and the feasibility of conducting studies based on these data.^ The association of non-work-related non-back injuries and subsequent occupational injury was statistically significant (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.02-1.67) for all WC claims. The strength of the association was supported by the elevated odds ratio for non-work-related injuries when severity of occupational injury was assessed by WC claim costs of $100 and greater (OR = 1.47, 1.09--1.97), and by lost workdays (OR = 1.37). Factors that predispose an individual to a non-back injury, such as personal attributes and lifestyle characteristics, also influence that individual's risk of subsequent occupational injury. These factors may be reflected in an employee's reaction to life stressors which influence susceptibility to injury. The role of employee assistance programs as a component of injury prevention strategies is suggested.^ An increased but nonsignificant prevalence of non-work-related injuries, cardiovascular disease, mental disorders, and other morbidity conditions was noted among cases. These findings do not provide support of a causal factor in the etiology of occupational injuries. In contrast to non-back injuries, these conditions are chronic in nature and their influence on risk of occupational injuries uncertain.^ In general, cases tended to file more group health insurance claims for other morbidity than did referents. The association with increased total morbidity was consistent whether worker compensation claims were analyzed by total number of claims, claims with costs of $100 and greater, or by lost workdays. Whether persons who sustained an occupational injury were in fact in poor general health than referents, warrant further investigation. ^

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. ^