Interventions to prevent injuries in construction workers.

BACKGROUND: Construction workers are frequently exposed to various types of injury-inducing hazards. There are a number of injury prevention interventions, yet their effectiveness is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for preventing injuries in construction workers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's specialised register, CENTRAL (issue 3), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to April 2017. The searches were not restricted by language or publication status. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time-series (ITS) of all types of interventions for preventing fatal and non-fatal injuries among workers at construction sites. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed their risk of bias. For ITS studies, we re-analysed the studies and used an initial effect, measured as the change in injury rate in the year after the intervention, as well as a sustained effect, measured as the change in time trend before and after the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies (14 ITS and 3 CBA studies) met the inclusion criteria in this updated version of the review. The ITS studies evaluated the effects of: introducing or changing regulations that laid down safety and health requirements for the construction sites (nine studies), a safety campaign (two studies), a drug-free workplace programme (one study), a training programme (one study), and safety inspections (one study) on fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries. One CBA study evaluated the introduction of occupational health services such as risk assessment and health surveillance, one evaluated a training programme and one evaluated the effect of a subsidy for upgrading to safer scaffoldings. The overall risk of bias of most of the included studies was high, as it was uncertain for the ITS studies whether the intervention was independent from other changes and thus could be regarded as the main reason of change in the outcome. Therefore, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for all comparisons.Compulsory interventionsRegulatory interventions at national or branch level may or may not have an initial effect (effect size (ES) of -0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to 1.41) and may or may not have a sustained effect (ES -0.03; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.24) on fatal and non-fatal injuries (9 ITS studies) due to highly inconsistent results (I² = 98%). Inspections may or may not have an effect on non-fatal injuries (ES 0.07; 95% CI -2.83 to 2.97; 1 ITS study).Educational interventionsSafety training interventions may result in no significant reduction of non-fatal injuries (1 ITS study and 1 CBA study).Informational interventionsWe found no studies that had evaluated informational interventions alone such as campaigns for risk communication.Persuasive interventionsWe found no studies that had evaluated persuasive interventions alone such as peer feedback on workplace actions to increase acceptance of safe working methods.Facilitative interventionsMonetary subsidies to companies may lead to a greater decrease in non-fatal injuries from falls to a lower level than no subsidies (risk ratio (RR) at follow-up: 0.93; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.91 from RR 3.89 at baseline; 1 CBA study).Multifaceted interventionsA safety campaign intervention may result in an initial (ES -1.82; 95% CI -2.90 to -0.74) and sustained (ES -1.30; 95% CI -1.79 to -0.81) decrease in injuries at the company level (1 ITS study), but not at the regional level (1 ITS study). A multifaceted drug-free workplace programme at the company level may reduce non-fatal injuries in the year following implementation by -7.6 per 100 person-years (95% CI -11.2 to -4.0) and in the years thereafter by -2.0 per 100 person-years (95% CI -3.5 to -0.5) (1 ITS study). Introducing occupational health services may result in no decrease in fatal or non-fatal injuries (one CBA study). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of interventions to adopt safety measures recommended by standard texts on safety, consultants and safety courses have not been adequately evaluated. There is very low-quality evidence that introducing regulations as such may or may not result in a decrease in fatal and non-fatal injuries. There is also very low-quality evidence that regionally oriented safety campaigns, training, inspections or the introduction of occupational health services may not reduce non-fatal injuries in construction companies. There is very low-quality evidence that company-oriented safety interventions such as a multifaceted safety campaign, a multifaceted drug workplace programme and subsidies for replacement of scaffoldings may reduce non-fatal injuries among construction workers. More studies, preferably cluster-randomised controlled trials, are needed to evaluate different strategies to increase the employers' and workers' adherence to the safety measures prescribed by regulation.

Interventions to prevent injuries in construction workers.

BACKGROUND: Construction workers are frequently exposed to various types of injury-inducing hazards. A number of injury prevention interventions have been proposed, yet their effectiveness is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to prevent injuries in construction workers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, OSH-ROM (including NIOSHTIC and HSELINE), Scopus, Web of Science and EI Compendex to September 2011. The searches were not restricted by language or publication status. The reference lists of relevant papers and reviews were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) of all types of interventions for preventing fatal and non-fatal injuries among workers at construction sites. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality. For ITS, we re-analysed the studies and used an initial effect, measured as the change in injury-rate in the year after the intervention, as well as a sustained effect, measured as the change in time trend before and after the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies, 12 ITS and one CBA study met the inclusion criteria. The ITS evaluated the effects of the introduction or change of regulations (N = 7), a safety campaign (N = 2), a drug-free workplace programme (N = 1), a training programme (N = 1), and safety inspections (N = 1) on fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries. One CBA study evaluated the introduction of occupational health services such as risk assessment and health surveillance.The overall risk of bias among the included studies was high as it was uncertain for the ITS studies whether the intervention was independent from other changes and thus could be regarded as the main reason of change in the outcome.The regulatory interventions at national or branch level showed a small but significant initial and sustained increase in fatal (effect sizes of 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 1.58) and non-fatal injuries (effect size 0.23; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.43).The safety campaign intervention resulted in a decrease in injuries at the company level but an increase at the regional level. Training interventions, inspections or the introduction of occupational health services did not result in a significant reduction of non-fatal injuries in single studies.A multifaceted drug-free workplace programme at the company level reduced non-fatal injuries in the year following implementation by -7.6 per 100 person-years (95% CI -11.2 to -4.0) and in the years thereafter by -2.0 per 100 person-years per year (95% CI -3.5 to -0.5). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of technical, human and organisational interventions that are recommended by standard texts of safety, consultants and safety courses have not been adequately evaluated. There is no evidence that introducing regulations for reducing fatal and non-fatal injuries are effective as such. There is neither evidence that regionally oriented safety campaigns, training, inspections nor the introduction of occupational health services are effective at reducing non-fatal injuries in construction companies. There is low-quality evidence that company-oriented safety interventions such as a multifaceted safety campaign and a multifaceted drug workplace programme can reduce non-fatal injuries among construction workers. Additional strategies are needed to increase the compliance of employers and workers to the safety measures that are prescribed by regulation. Continuing company-oriented interventions among management and construction workers, such as a targeted safety campaign or a drug-free workplace programme, seem to have an effect in reducing injuries in the longer term.

The effectiveness of interventions for preventing injuries in the construction industry: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Occupational injury rates among construction workers are the highest among the major industries. A number of injury-prevention interventions have been proposed, yet the effectiveness of these is uncertain. Thus a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for preventing occupational injuries among construction workers was conducted. METHODS: Seven databases were searched, from the earliest available dates through June 2006, for published findings of injury prevention in construction studies. Acceptable study designs included RCTs; controlled before-after studies; and interrupted time series (ITS). Effect sizes of similar interventions were pooled into a meta-analysis in January 2007. RESULTS: Of 7522 titles found, four ITS studies and one controlled ITS study met the inclusion criteria. The overall methodologic quality was low. No indications of publication bias were found. Findings from a safety-campaign study and a drug-free-workplace study indicated that both interventions significantly reduced the level and the trend of injuries. Three studies that evaluated legislation did not decrease the level (ES 0.69; 95% CI=-1.70, 3.09) and made the downward trend (ES 0.28; 95% CI=0.05, 0.51) of injuries less favorable. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence was found for the effectiveness of a multifaceted safety campaign and a multifaceted drug program, but no evidence was found that legislation is effective to prevent nonfatal or fatal injuries in the construction industry.

New equipment to lighten the work load of construction workers.

The objective of this study was to determine whether the 4 pieces of equipment for cutting moulding, cutting reinforcement rods, carrying carpet rolls, and fitting drain pipes can lighten the work load of construction work. The results indicate that the effect of using the new ergonomically designed equipment was positive. The cutter for reinforcement rods proved to be useful, bent back postures decreased by 11%. The carrying of carpet rolls became less loading on the lower and upper extremities. According to the men the work load was lower in fitting drain pipes, especially on the lower extremities and in the neck and shoulder region. The conclusion was reached that work load can be decreased with well-planned equipment, but more attention should be given to personal work methods and habits.