Zafar, J and Chileshe, N (2018) Analysis of health and well-being practices among older construction site-based workers in South Australia. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
There are limited studies undertaken on the prevailing health and wellbeing practices of older construction workers, and how these practices influence the employee satisfaction and performance. To narrow this gap, the study aims to explore how the health and wellbeing practices influence the performance of older construction-based workers. A questionnaire based survey was performed among the 85 South Australian older (50 plus years) construction workers involved in site-based project work to identify the prevailing health and wellbeing practices and their impact on work ability. The survey data was subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics with regression analysis to predict the impact of the practices on work ability. Eighteen health and wellbeing practices were identified to be significant in influencing the work ability and productivity of older construction site-based workers. The results indicated that the most highly ranked five practices were from the 'leadership and organisational support' category as follows: (i) my employer cares about my health; (ii) employers should play an active role in improving the health of their employees; (iii) my company’s leader are committed to worker health, safety and well-being; (iv) preventative screening; and (v) my employer provides me with resources necessary to maintain good health. The least-ranked practices were drawn from the following 'workplace health promotion (WHP)' programs category: (i) corporate sponsored challenges; (ii) healthy food options on-site cafeteria or healthy snack option; (iii) case managers to track disease management; (iv) medication adherence programs; and (vi) monitoring of health goals/biometrics, BMI and weight loss, cholesterol levels and blood pressure. The overall sum of working ability reported by most respondents was found to be good and moderate. The identified practices could be used for the promotion and development of interventional strategies aimed at improving the general and mental wellbeing of older construction workers.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction site; leadership; monitoring; performance; productivity; safety; construction worker; employee; employer; wellbeing; regression analysis; Australia |
| Index terms: | productivity, strategy, construction site, health and wellbeing, screening, Australia, survey, manager, cafeteria, promotion, satisfaction, blood pressure, construction worker, statistics, South Australia, option, health promotion, regression analysis, well-being, program, monitoring, cholesterol, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | software systems, public and environmental health, management, physical geography and landforms, Geography, decision analysis, statistical analysis, mathematical modelling, mental health and wellbeing, data collection methods, construction type, control systems, practitioner, work location, project delivery, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Site Management |
| 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