Outdoor workers and sun protection: Knowledge and behaviour

Cioffi, J; Wilkes, L and Hartcher-O'Brien, J (2002) Outdoor workers and sun protection: Knowledge and behaviour. Construction Economics and Building, 2(2), pp. 10-14. ISSN 2204-9029

Abstract

Outdoor workers are at high risk of developing skin cancer. Primary prevention can potentially reduce the incidence of skin cancer in this group. This study aimed to determine the knowledge and sun protective behaviour of outdoor workers towards skin cancer. A short questionnaire was used to collect data from workers on construction sites during working hours. Despite workers having knowledge of the risks of skin cancer their use of sun protection was less than satisfactory, particularly considering their cumulative exposure. Workplace health education programs for outdoor workers addressing sun protection are indicated, as is further research to increase understanding of issues workers have with sun protection in the workplace.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: health and safety; skin cancer; questionaire survey
Index terms: working hours, program, health and safety, questionnaire, sun, prevention, exposure, construction site, survey, skin cancer
Subjects: work location, health conditions and diseases, energy systems, data collection methods, public and environmental health, software systems, health safety and environment, employment law, financial risk
Topics: Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Site Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Sustainability
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

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