AIMS: (1) To develop a transparent and broadly applicable method for assessing occupational safety and health (OSH) programmes or management systems; (2) to assess OSH programmes in a sample of manufacturing worksites; and (3) to determine whether a management focused occupational health intervention results in greater improvement in OSH programmes compared to minimal intervention controls. METHODS: OSH programmes were assessed using an adaptation of the US Occupational Safety & Health Administration's 1995 Program Evaluation Profile. Scores were generated from 91 binary indicator variables grouped under four "Essential Elements". Essential Element scores were weighted to contribute to an overall programme score on a 100 point scale. Seventeen large manufacturing worksites were assessed at baseline; 15 sites completed the 16 month intervention and follow up assessments. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in Essential Element scores across sites at baseline as judged by our instrument, particularly in "management commitment and employee participation" and "workplace analysis". Most sites scored highly on "hazard prevention and control" and "training and education". For overall OSH programme scores, most sites scored in the 60-80% range at baseline, with four sites scoring below 60%, suggesting weak programmes. Intervention sites showed greater improvements than controls in the four programme elements and in overall programme scores, with significantly greater improvements in "management commitment and employee participation". CONCLUSIONS: The OSH programme assessment method used is broadly applicable to manufacturing work settings, and baseline profiles suggest needs for improvement in OSH programmes in most such worksites. Despite a small sample size, results showed that sustained management focused intervention can result in improvement in these OSH programme measures.
AIMS: (1) To develop a transparent and broadly applicable method for assessing occupational safety and health (OSH) programmes or management systems; (2) to assess OSH programmes in a sample of manufacturing worksites; and (3) to determine whether a management focused occupational health intervention results in greater improvement in OSH programmes compared to minimal intervention controls. METHODS: OSH programmes were assessed using an adaptation of the US Occupational Safety & Health Administration's 1995 Program Evaluation Profile. Scores were generated from 91 binary indicator variables grouped under four "Essential Elements". Essential Element scores were weighted to contribute to an overall programme score on a 100 point scale. Seventeen large manufacturing worksites were assessed at baseline; 15 sites completed the 16 month intervention and follow up assessments. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in Essential Element scores across sites at baseline as judged by our instrument, particularly in "management commitment and employee participation" and "workplace analysis". Most sites scored highly on "hazard prevention and control" and "training and education". For overall OSH programme scores, most sites scored in the 60-80% range at baseline, with four sites scoring below 60%, suggesting weak programmes. Intervention sites showed greater improvements than controls in the four programme elements and in overall programme scores, with significantly greater improvements in "management commitment and employee participation". CONCLUSIONS: The OSH programme assessment method used is broadly applicable to manufacturing work settings, and baseline profiles suggest needs for improvement in OSH programmes in most such worksites. Despite a small sample size, results showed that sustained management focused intervention can result in improvement in these OSH programme measures.
Authors: Glorian Sorensen; Anne M Stoddard; Anthony D LaMontagne; Karen Emmons; Mary Kay Hunt; Richard Youngstrom; Deborah McLellan; David C Christiani Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Elizabeth Barbeau; Cora Roelofs; Richard Youngstrom; Glorian Sorensen; Anne Stoddard; Anthony D LaMontagne Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: L Shulman Cordeira; M S Pednekar; E M Nagler; J Gautam; L Wallace; A M Stoddard; P C Gupta; G C Sorensen Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2015-03-21
Authors: Glorian Sorensen; Deborah McLellan; Jack T Dennerlein; Nicolaas P Pronk; Jennifer D Allen; Leslie I Boden; Cassandra A Okechukwu; Dean Hashimoto; Anne Stoddard; Gregory R Wagner Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Glorian Sorensen; Deborah L McLellan; Erika L Sabbath; Jack T Dennerlein; Eve M Nagler; David A Hurtado; Nicolaas P Pronk; Gregory R Wagner Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Glorian Sorensen; Emily Sparer; Jessica A R Williams; Daniel Gundersen; Leslie I Boden; Jack T Dennerlein; Dean Hashimoto; Jeffrey N Katz; Deborah L McLellan; Cassandra A Okechukwu; Nicolaas P Pronk; Anna Revette; Gregory R Wagner Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Mary K Hunt; Deborah Hennrikus; Lisa M Brosseau; Peter J Hannan; Marc Katz; Erika A Pinsker; Harry A Lando; Claudia Egelhoff Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Deborah L McLellan; Alberto J Cabán-Martinez; Candace C Nelson; Nicolaas P Pronk; Jeffrey N Katz; Jennifer D Allen; Kia L Davis; Gregory R Wagner; Glorian Sorensen Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Anthony D LaMontagne; Anne M Stoddard; Cora Roelofs; Grace Sembajwe; Amy L Sapp; Glorian Sorensen Journal: Environ Health Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 5.984