Lowe, B D; Albers, J; Hayden, M; Lampl, M; Naber, S and Wurzelbacher, S (2020) Review of construction employer case studies of safety and health equipment interventions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(4): 04020012, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper presents a review of 153 case studies of equipment interventions to improve safety and health of construction businesses in Ohio in 2003-2016. These represent $6.46 million (2016 USD) in purchases incentivized through the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (OHBWC) Safety Intervention Grant (SIG) program. The source data in the review were extracted from employer grant applications and final reports of the case studies. Results were aggregated by type of construction equipment and included the reduction in safety and ergonomic hazards (risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders), and an assessment of the quality of the case studies as determined through criteria established by the authors. Equipment associated with greatest reduction in risk factors and with case studies of higher quality were electrical cable feeding/pulling systems, concrete sawing equipment, skid steer attachments for concrete breaking, and manlifts (boom lifts). This review illustrates challenges in demonstrating efficacy of equipment interventions to improve construction safety/health-even from case studies within a structured health/safety program. The authors are aware of no other systematic review of case studies reporting on experiences with health/safety intervention equipment specific to the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | compensation, risk factor, construction equipment, program, systematic literature review, construction industry, construction safety, case study |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, data collection methods, research evaluation and metrics, construction equipment, environmental health, dispute resolution, software systems, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Plant and Equipment, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Digital Applications, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here