Emily H. Sparer, Paul J. Catalano,
Robert F. Herrick, Jack T. Dennerlein
May 8, 2015
Improving Construction Site Safety Communication and Climate through a
Safety Communication and Recognition Program
2
Study Rationale and Goal
• Lagging indicator-based safety incentive program• Recognizes low injury rates• Communicates the importance of reduction in injury reporting, not
actual injuries (Lipscomb et al. 2013, AJIM)
• Leading indicator-based safety incentive program• Recognizes creation and maintenance of safe working conditions
Study Goal: Evaluate the efficacy of a leading indicator safety incentive program on safety conditions.
3
B-SAFE: Safety Communication and Recognition Program
Sparer et al., 2015, New Solutions
4
Study Design
• Cluster randomized controlled trial• Eight worksites (4 intervention matched w/ 4 control)• ~5 months/site
• Pre/post exposure safety
climate analysis• 9-item (90-point) scale
(Dedobbleleer and Beland, 1991)
5
Study Sample (n=615) • Response rate: 74%• Male (97%)• White (83%)• Union members (98%)• Mean age: 42• Journeymen (61%)• Mechanical trades (63%)
Mixed Effects Regression Model
6
ModelOther variables
included in modelEffect
estimateN
Standard error
P-value
Model 1 – Unadjusted -- 1.98 604 1.37 0.15
Model 2 – Adjusted
•Worksite pair 2.06 604 0.85 0.016
Model 3 – Adjusted
•Worksite pair •Worker trade•Title•Race/ethnicity•Month started on-site•Total of time on-site
2.29 600 0.91 0.012
Primary independent variable: treatment effect (control/intervention)Dependent variable: change in pre- and post- B-SAFE exposure safety climate Random effect: site variable
7
Study Conclusions• Programs that engage all workers by
recognizing safe working conditions and strong communication offer an alternative to controversial lagging indicator-based programs
• Simple programs that build upon existing site programs and policies can have a positive and sustainable impact on worksite health and safety