Search results

Abstract

Objectives
Workers in small and medium residential construction companies (≤50 employees) have a high risk of fall-related fatality or disability. However, little is known about effective ways to engage with this subsector for research and training. We tested whether insurance-documented fall-related claims during the past 12 months and lower familiarity with equipment motivated companies' representatives to engage with a fall protection survey.


Methods
Oregon's largest workers compensation insurer drew a random anonymous sample of small and medium residential construction that did (n = 197) and did not (n = 195) have a recent fall-related claim. Samples were stratified by size, trade, and region. Company representatives were emailed a 34-item questionnaire about equipment familiarity to enter a raffle to win fall-prevention equipment. We coded survey engagement binarily, indicating whether a participant completed at least half of the survey. Familiarity with 10 pieces of equipment was measured with a scale from 0 (never seen it) to 3 (use it frequently) points.


Results
The survey was initiated by 88 out of 392 representatives (22.4% response rate). Of those, 63 representatives provided the company identifier which was needed to establish claim status. Survey engagement was higher among representatives from companies with claims compared with those without (57.6 versus 42.4%, P = 0.16). Equipment familiarity was lower among company representatives with lower survey engagement (1.15 versus 1.56, P < 0.05).


Conclusions
The survey had a relatively encouraging response rate for a hard-to-reach sector. The large but not statistically significant difference in survey engagement rates suggests that adverse events motivate companies to engage with fall protection research. Low equipment familiarity in the sample substantiates the need to identify effective engagement methods for fall protection practices.

Purpose: To estimate the effects of a workplace initiative to reduce work–family conflict on employee performance. Design: A group-randomized multisite controlled experimental study with longitudinal follow-up. Setting: An information technology firm. Participants: Employees randomized to the intervention (n = 348) and control condition (n = 345). Intervention: An intervention, "Start. Transform. Achieve. Results." to enhance employees' control over their work time, to increase supervisors' support for this change, and to increase employees' and supervisors' focus on results. Methods: We estimated the effect of the intervention on 9 self-reported employee performance measures using a difference-in-differences approach with generalized linear mixed models. Performance measures included actual and expected hours worked, absenteeism, and presenteeism. Results: This study found little evidence that an intervention targeting work–family conflict affected employee performance. The only significant effect of the intervention was an approximately 1-hour reduction in expected work hours. After Bonferroni correction, the intervention effect is marginally insignificant at 6 months and marginally significant at 12 and 18 months. Conclusion: The intervention reduced expected working time by 1 hour per week; effects on most other employee self-reported performance measures were statistically insignificant. When coupled with the other positive wellness and firm outcomes, this intervention may be useful for improving employee perceptions of increased access to personal time or personal wellness without sacrificing performance. The null effects on performance provide countervailing evidence to recent negative press on work–family and flex work initiatives.