↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for preventing injuries in the construction industry

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions for preventing injuries in the construction industry
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006251.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

van der Molen, Henk F, Lehtola, Marika M, Lappalainen, Jorma, Hoonakker, Peter LT, Hsiao, Hongwei, Haslam, Roger, Hale, Andrew R, Verbeek, Jos H, van der Molen, H F, Lehtola, M M, Lappalainen, J, Hoonakker, P L T, Hsiao, H, Haslam, R, Hale, A R, Verbeek, J, Henk F van der Molen, Marika M Lehtola, Jorma Lappalainen, Peter LT Hoonakker, Hongwei Hsiao, Roger Haslam, Andrew R Hale, Jos H Verbeek

Abstract

Construction workers are frequently exposed to various types of injury-inducing hazards. A number of injury prevention interventions have been proposed, yet the effectiveness of these is uncertain. To assess the effects of interventions for preventing injuries among workers at construction sites. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, OSH-ROM (including NIOSHTIC and HSELINE), EI Compendex. The reference lists of relevant papers, reviews and websites were also searched. The searches were not restricted by language or publication status. All databases were searched up to June 2006. Randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series of all types of interventions for preventing fatal and non-fatal injuries among workers at construction sites. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. For interrupted time series, we reanalysed the studies and used an initial effect, measured as the change in injury-rate in the year after the intervention, as well as a sustained effect, measured as the change in time trend before and after the intervention. Five interrupted time series studies met the inclusion criteria. Three studies evaluated the effect of regulations, one evaluated a safety campaign, and one a drug-free workplace program on fatal or non-fatal injuries compared to no drug-free workplace program. The overall methodological quality was low. The regulatory interventions did not show either an initial or sustained effect on fatal or non-fatal injuries, with effect sizes of 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 3.09) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.51). The safety campaign did have an initial and sustained effect, reducing non-fatal injuries with effect sizes of -1.82 (95% CI -2.90 to -0.75) and -1.30 (95% CI -1.79 to -0.80) respectively. The drug-free workplace program did have an initial and sustained effect, reducing non-fatal injuries compared to no intervention, with effect sizes of -6.74 (95% CI -10.02 to -3.54) and -1.76 (95% CI -3.11 to -0.41) respectively. The vast majority of technical, human factors and organisational interventions which are recommended by standard texts of safety, consultants and safety courses, have not been adequately evaluated. There is no evidence that regulations for reducing fatal and non-fatal injuries are effective. There is limited evidence that a multifaceted safety campaign and a multifaceted drug program can reduce non-fatal injuries in the construction industry.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
South Africa 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
Unknown 66 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 24%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Engineering 7 10%
Psychology 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 11 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2014.
All research outputs
#5,458,309
of 25,413,176 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,363
of 11,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,090
of 88,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,413,176 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 88,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.