Spangenberg, S; Hannerz, H and Tüchsen, F (2005) Hospitalized injuries among bridge and tunnel construction workers. Construction Management and Economics, 23(3), pp. 237-240. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare relative risks for hospitalizing injuries among 7761 Danish workers engaged in the construction of different types of major tunnel and bridge traffic links during 1991-2000 in order to determine construction types with high injury risk. Standardized hospitalization ratios (SHR) for injuries were calculated by type of construction (low-level bridge, high-level bridge, bored tunnel and submerged tunnel). All employed males in the total population of Denmark were used as the standard population. Neither the SHR nor the distribution of injury types were independent of the construction type (p<0.05). The hospitalization ratio was highest for bored tunnel workers (SHR= 1.91; 95% CI: 1.65-2.21) and here toxic gases and smoke were a major problem, whereas head injuries were more frequent among workers engaged in other types of construction. The substantial variation in SHR values with construction type might be an argument for inclusion of workers safety in pre-project decision making.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bored tunnel; heavy construction; injury distribution; occupational risk assessment; pre-project decision; toxic gasses and smoke |
| Index terms: | risk assessment, decision-making, tunnel construction, population, variation, tunnel, air quality, heavy construction, Denmark, injury |
| Subjects: | civil engineering, financial risk, air quality, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, health conditions and diseases, Geography, contractual condition, demography |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Contract Administration, Urban Studies, Cost Management, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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