More than training: Community‐based participatory research to reduce injuries among hispanic construction workers

Abstract

This study provides evidence for successful implementation of a training intervention for low wage, low literacy Hispanic construction workers using a community-based participatory research approach.

The influence of demographics and working conditions on self-reported injuries among Latino day laborers

“…13,14,23,[26][27][28] Although one prior report investigated working conditions among construction workers in the state of Texas and one injury prevention community-based participatory research study was conducted among Hispanic construction workers, to our knowledge, there are no published studies documenting self-reported on-the-job injuries among LDLs in Texas. 29,30 In this study, we (1) describe injuries reported by day laborers in Houston, Texas, (2) explore the extent to which demographic and occupational risk factors predict self-reported onthe-job injuries, and (3) explore whether summative exposure measures for the total job types, total job conditions, and total PPE predict self-reported occupational injuries.…”

Active behaviour change safety interventions in the construction industry: A systematic review

“…The type of construction work varied, from specific trades (e.g., carpentry, roofing, tiling, concrete, floor laying) to larger scale industries (e.g., metal/steel/aluminium work, stone quarry, railways). Six studies were conducted in the USA (Becker et al, 2001;Darragh et al, 2004;Forst et al, 2013;Kerr et al, 2007;Lusk et al, 1999;Sokas et al, 2009), three in Denmark (Kines et al, 2013(Kines et al, , 2010Spangenberg et al, 2002), two in Italy (Bena et al, 2009;Mancini et al, 2005), and one each in Hong Kong (Lingard and Rowlinson, 1997), India (Adams et al, 2013), Spain (Lopez-Ruiz et al, 2013), and Finland (Laitinen and Päivärinta, 2010).…”

“…Two studies used a pre-post design with a control group but were not classified as RCTs due to non-random assignment to conditions (Becker et al, 2001) or comparison with non-matched convenience samples (Mancini et al, 2005). Two studies used a pre-post design with no control group (Forst et al, 2013;Sokas et al, 2009); three studies used an interrupted time-series design with (Laitinen and Päivärinta, 2010) or without a control group (Darragh et al, 2004;Spangenberg et al, 2002); and two studies used a mixed-approach including both pre-post and time-series analyses with (Lopez-Ruiz et al, 2013) or without a control group (Bena et al, 2009). The final study employed a within-groups design where four different behaviours were targeted in a staggered fashion and the same group of participants served as the intervention and control groups (Lingard and Rowlinson, 1997).…”

“…Two studies reported on both injury rates and the uptake of safety behaviours (Adams et al, 2013;Laitinen and Päivärinta, 2010). Five studies reported on injury rates alone (Bena et al, 2009;Darragh et al, 2004;Lopez-Ruiz et al, 2013;Mancini et al, 2005;Spangenberg et al, 2002), and eight studies reported on the uptake of safety behaviours alone (Becker et al, 2001;Forst et al, 2013;Kerr et al, 2007;Kines et al, 2013Kines et al, , 2010Lingard and Rowlinson, 1997;Lusk et al, 1999;Sokas et al, 2009). Most studies measured general/overall injuries (Bena et al, 2009;Darragh et al, 2004;Laitinen and Päivärinta, 2010;Lopez-Ruiz et al, 2013;Spangenberg et al, 2002), although two focused specifically on eye/ocular injuries (Adams et al, 2013;Mancini et al, 2005).…”

“…Interventions used a range of methods to change behaviour including educational/information sessions (Adams et al, 2013;Bena et al, 2009;Darragh et al, 2004;Forst et al, 2013;Sokas et al, 2009), the distribution of educational material (e.g., booklet, TV broadcasts; Darragh et al, 2004;Lusk et al, 1999;Mancini et al, 2005;Spangenberg et al, 2002), site inspections/audits/follow-up visits (Adams et al, 2013;Becker et al, 2001;Laitinen and Päivärinta, 2010;Lopez-Ruiz et al, 2013), coaching (Kines et al, 2010), goal setting (Lingard and Rowlinson, 1997), problem solving (Kines et al, 2013), providing feedback (Kines et al, 2010;Lingard and Rowlinson, 1997;Spangenberg et al, 2002), and administrative strategies such as management meetings, warning letters, and the development of recommendations and sanctions (Lopez-Ruiz et al, 2013;Spangenberg et al, 2002). One study involved participants playing a computer game that incorporated health messages (Kerr et al, 2007); and two consisted of a safety campaign (Spangenberg et al, 2002) or contest (Laitinen and Päivärinta, 2010) between different construction companies/sites, both of which employed incentives and penalties.…”