Affiliations: Department of Community Medicine, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, WV, USA | West Virginia University Injury Control Research
Center, Morgantown, WV, USA | Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke
University, Durham, NC, USA | Department of Epidemiology, University of Colorado,
Aurora, CO, USA | Department of Community and Behavioral Health,
University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA | Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Note: [] Address for correspondence: Kimberly J. Rauscher, MA, West
Virginia University Injury Control Research Center, P.O. Box 9151, Morgantown,
WV 26505, USA. Tel.: +1 304 293 0254; Fax: +1 304 293 0265; E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract: Objective: Little is known about how social aspects of the work
environment influence exposures or safety practices affecting young
construction workers. Our objective was to investigate whether working on a
construction site with a small number of workers (⩽ 10 vs. 11–50) or
having a family-firm connection (working in a firm owned by a family member or
one in which a family member also works) impacts hazard exposures and safety
practices. Participants: Participants included 187 North Carolina construction
workers 14 to 17 years old who were surveyed about their jobs. Methods: We conducted stratified analyses using cross-tabulations
and chi-square statistics to measure associations between workgroup size (i.e.,
the total number of workers on a jobsite) and family-firm connections (yes/no)
and hazard exposures (e.g., saws) and safety practices (e.g., supervision).
Results: Having a family-firm connection was associated with fewer
hazard exposures and greater safety practices. Youth who worked on jobsites
with a larger workgroup (11–50 workers) reported more hazards but also
more safety practices. Conclusions: Family-firm connections, in particular, may have a
protective effect for youth in construction. Even though the statistical
significance of our findings on workgroup size was limited in places, the
pattern of differences found suggest that further research in this area is
warranted.
Keywords: Workplace health and safety, workgroup size, family networks, family ties
