Work Safety for Young Part Time Workers: Developing an Assessment Tool and Testing an Intervention

Cindy Hunt, Dr.PH, RN

Presenter Disclosures

(1) The following personal financial relationships with commercial interests relevant to this presentation existed during the past 12 months:

Cindy Hunt

No relationships to disclose.

Background•Approximately 45% of adolescents (15 to 19 ) and 71% of young adults 20-24 yrs in Canada held jobs (Marshall, 2010)

•work injury for young workers can be 1.2 to 2X greater than those of older adults (Salinen, 2004, Breslin & Smith, 2005)

•Injured young workers can have permanent impairment with the potential to negatively impact future employment, life time earnings, and health status, making work safety for youth a long term economic, social and public health issue

Building a collaboration: to address work safety for young workers

• Humber

•Institute for Work and Health

•Safe Communities Canada

Research Questions

• What is the nature of work for young adults?

• Does an on-line training intervention (“Passport to Safety”) improve knowledge, attitudes and beliefs on work safety for youth?

• What is the impact & sustainability of on-line work safety training on college students ?

Actions: a collaboration with college, researcher (IWH) and safety NGO( SCC) to a)describe nature of work to post secondary student workers and b) to evaluate an enhanced OHS training using online Passport to Safety

Drivers : need to reduce and prevent work related injuries to post secondary student workers and promote a culture of work safety

Pressures, reduced resources in work environments but need for OHS training, diverse jobs and training required for young workers, multiple supervisors students working in a variety of jobs

Exposure: young workers exposed to workplace physical hazards and environmental exposures

State: level of risk varies with type of job, previous OHS training and safety experience

Effect: toxicants and injuries affect young workers maturing organ systems including reproductive, respiratory, skeletal, immune, central nervous system

CONTEXT: Social: students studying full time

Economic: low income students Demographic: multicultural students Behavioural factors: students in work study program work 24hrs or less per week at college

DPSEEA (Stone & Morris, 2010)Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effect, Actions

Methods•Study Population

▫work study students attending an urban based college

•Study Design▫Longitudinal, randomized cluster

Control n=64▫Regular OHS training

Intervention n=68▫Regular OHS training + on-line work safety

intervention

Figure 2: Flow chart of participants through cluster randomized longitudinal study.

Randomization by classroom

n=132

Intervention group

Regular OHS & on-line training n=66

T-1

T-2

T-3 Intervention group

Regular OHS & on-line training n=46

Control group

Regular OHS n=46

Control group

Regular OHS, n=64

Control group

Regular OHS, n=64

Intervention group

Regular OHS& on-line training n=68

Measure•Student Work Assessment Tool (SWAT)

• 42 item online questionnaire• demographic (2), job characteristics(9),

work environment (11), personal experience with work safety (6), work place safety preparation (14)

• (Breslin, Wood & Mustard, 2009; Garcia et al, 2004; Lahtinen et al, 2004; Reijula & Sundam-Digert, 2004; Runyan et al, 2007).

Intervention

• http://www.passporttosafety.com/newInfo/AboutUs.php

Characteristics of Study ParticipantsLower Upper Std

Variable Group N 95% CL Mean 95% CL Dev Pr > |t|

Age Intervention 65 22.1 23.9 25.6 7.1

(years) Control 64 21.7 22.6 23.4 3.4

Difference (1-2) -0.6 1.3 3.3 5.6 0.18

Gender Intervention 68 0.41 0.53 0.65 0.50

(proportion Female) Control 64 0.49 0.61 0.73 0.49

Difference (1-2) -0.25 -0.08 0.09 0.50 0.36

Average work hours Intervention 68 17.0 20.0 23.0 12.4

(per week) Control 63 19.0 22.9 26.9 15.8

Difference (1-2) -7.8 -2.9 2.0 14.2 0.24

Descriptive Results: Injury Reported by Type (n=29)

cut,puncture,bite scrape,bruise,blister burn,scald multiple injuries sprain.strain0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% 62%

48%45%

38%

28%

Percent reported direct contact with products. N=132

cleaning agents paints/glue air pollution building products chlorine pesticides0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%46%

16%

10%

6%5% 3%

Student Work Assessment Tool-Construct Validity• Safety Knowledge

▫ Do you feel that you have enough information to work safely?▫ Do you feel that you lack experience for working safely?▫ Do you feel you have knowledge of risks in your place?

• Work Strain▫ Do you regard your work as interesting and stimulating?▫ Do you have any opportunity to influence your working

conditions?▫ Do your fellow workers help you with problems you may have

in your work? • Prevention Beliefs

▫ Most workplace injuries are preventable through education, training, and proper supervision.

▫ People make too much of an issue about workplace safety.▫ Working part time has helped me gain a better understanding

of workplace health and safety issues.

Inferential Results ANCOVA: Mean Differences for prevention beliefs, safety knowledge and work strain.T2

prevention beliefs safety knowledge work strain4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

intervention control

Discussion & Strengths

•No statistical differences between intervention & control groups on 3 constructs at T2 & T3

•DPSEEA model: environmental health focus

•SWAT tool-3 constructs-safety knowledge, work strain, prevention beliefs -consider as a nursing assessment tool for young workers

Study Limitations•sample size•measurement tool •self reports•intervention was not that different than

the normal OHS training

Next Steps for Youth Work Safety

•refine tool•repeat with modification to study design • explore “job specific safety training”•study supervisor’s role•extend the reach of OHS to nursing

students & other health care professionals

Selected References• Breslin FC, Smith P. (2005). Age-related differences in work injuries: A multivariate, population-

based study. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 48(1), 50-56.

• Breslin FC, Wood M, Mustard C. (2009). Bridging the safety gap for vulnerable young workers using employment centres: final report. Toronto: Institute for Work & Health.

 • Garcia A., Boix P., Canosa C. (2004). Why do workers behave unsafely at work? Determinants of

safe work practice in industrial workers. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 61,239-246.

• Lahtinen M., Sundman-Digert C, Reijula K. (2004). Psychosocial work environment and indoor air problems: a questionnaire as a means of problem diagnosis. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 61, 143-149.

• Marshall K. (2010). Employment patterns of postsecondary students. Statistics Canada. Catalogue no75-001-X.www.statcan.gc.ca/pub75-0001-x/210109. Accessed March 17, 2010.

• Reijula K., Sundman-Digert C. (2004). Assessment of indoor air problems at work with a questionnaire. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 61, 33-38.

 • Reed D, Kidd P, Westneat S, Rayens M. (2001). Agricultural disability awareness and risk

education(agdare) for high school students. Injury Prevention, 7, 59-63. • Runyan C., Schulaman M., Dal Santo J., Bowling M., Agans R., Ta, M. (2007). Work related hazards

and workplace safety of US adolescents employed in the retail and service sectors. Pediatrics, 119, 526-534.

• Salminen S. (2004). Have young workers more injuries than older ones? An international literature review. Journal of Safety Research, 35:513-21.

• Stone, D., Morris, G. (2010). Injury prevention: a strategic priority for environmental health? Public Health, 124(6), 559-564.