Uher, T E and Ritchie, J A N (1998) Promoting the health of construction workers. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(3), pp. 304-311. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The present paper reports on research which attempted to ascertain the attitudes of the management and site personnel of general contractors and subcontractors on the issue of health promotion in the workplace. The main focus was on fitness and nutrition programmes, and the existence of a relationship between the health of employees and their productivity. The data were collected using questionnaires from a sample of eight large general contractors and 14 subcontractors operating in the Sydney region of the Australian construction industry. The responses in the sample were received from eight occupational health and safety (OHS) managers and 34 site workers employed by general contractors, and 14 site workers employed by subcontractors. The attitudes of the respondents toward health promotion in the workplace were found to be highly positive, and supportive of the development and implementation of health promotion programmes. In the opinion of the respondents, job performance and productivity may be increased through health promotion programmes in the workplace.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fitness; health; nutrition; productivity |
| Index terms: | construction worker, construction industry, implementation, productivity, questionnaire, subcontractor, health promotion, personnel, manager, programme, general contractor, occupational health and safety |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, practitioner, data collection methods, industry analysis, project controls, occupational health and safety management, management, public and environmental health |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Time Control, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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