Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access

Relationship between occupational injuries and the provision of safety and health information: data from the 4th Korean working conditions survey

Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine201830:36

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-018-0247-7

  • Received: 23 January 2018
  • Accepted: 23 May 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the provision of safety and health information (PSHI) and occupational injuries.

Methods

This study was based on data from the 4th Korean Working Conditions Survey (KWCS) (2014). The sample consisted of data from 24,527 wage workers and was divided into high-risk and low-risk groups, depending on the probability of occupational injury. The high-risk group included subjects who could cause harm to themselves or others due to errors during work. We applied chi-squared tests and logistic regression analyses to examine the relationship between PSHI and occupational injuries.

Results

In the high-risk group, workers with no PSHI showed an adjusted odds ratio of 1.81 for occupational injury (95% CI 1.33–2.47). In contrast, there was no statistically significant relationship between PSHI and the incidence of occupational injury in the low-risk group.

Conclusions

To prevent occupational injuries, multi-faceted approaches that take different levels of injury risk into account are needed. Among workers with a high risk of occupational injury, more a stringent safety education program is required.

Keywords

  • Safety and health information
  • Occupational injury
  • KWCS

Background

Occupational injuries do not only have serious personal effects, but they can also result in loss of life and/or property. In the case of industrial accidents in South Korea, direct and indirect economic losses in 2015 were estimated at 20.3 trillion Korean won [1]. This was an increase of 3.89% from 19.6 trillion won in losses in 2014, indicating an increasing trend despite a decrease in the industrial accident rate [1]. In order to reduce such economic damage related to occupational injuries, the Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency has been operating an “Occupational Acute Intoxication and Injury Management System” in Incheon City [2]. That system was designed to report suspected cases of occupationally acute poisoning, as well as to share case information, conduct field surveys, and undertake epidemiologic surveys at regional intervention centers. In addition to such follow-up efforts, the prevention of injuries and diseases is also important. Many researchers and policy-makers have recognized that occupational and non-occupational factors may simultaneously contribute to worker safety and health [3, 4]. A primary step in the prevention of disease not only includes improvement of workers’ health but also identification and elimination of various risk factors for occupational diseases [5]. Several types of health information and data from the behavioral sciences have contributed to reducing mortality and morbidity as well as injury- or disease-related complications [6]. Therefore, prevention of occupational injuries and diseases, as well as the provision of safety and health information (PSHI), are essential for all workers. The Korean Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act was enacted in 1981, and since a revision in 1990, there has been promotion of a systematic workplace health management project. A number of papers related to occupational health education practices and occupational health care providers have been published, but most have focused on manufacturing or secondary industries [7]. An interest in occupational health has spread to various fields, but the importance of and concern about PSHI have not been sustained [7]. For example, in 2004, only 56.1% of workers received safety and health education as mandatorily required by Korean OSH Act [8].

The aim of this study was to clarify the relationship between PSHI and occupational injuries in a nationally representative sample of South Korean workers. Prior research in Korea has rarely focused on the association between the rate of occupational injuries and PSHI, in particular, with respect to the degree of occupational-injury risks. In this study, we examined various influencing elements, including general characteristics, occupational characteristics, and job-related factors, that are associated with occupational injuries.

Methods

Study subjects

This study analyzed data from the 4th Korea Working Conditions Survey (KWCS) (2014) [9]. The Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI) has been conducting the KWCS since 2006 in South Korea. The KWCS emulated the European Working Conditions Survey and the UK Labor Force Survey to identify the overall South Korean work conditions such as employment type, job stability, occupation, and risk factor exposure. Among households from the 2010 Population and Housing Census [10], the KWCS selected individuals who met the criteria of being an “employee,” who were laborers, 15 years or older, and who worked for more than 1 h per week at the time of the survey. Trained interviewers visited the subjects’ homes and conducted one-to-one interviews. Statistics Korea determined the KWCS information’s reliability to increase the usage of its data. The survey’s response rate was 33.0%, the cooperation rate 69.9%, and the refusal rate 14.2% [11]. Because the characteristics of self-employed and wage workers are markedly different, this study restricted the subjects to wage workers. Out of a total of 50,007 respondents, 30,751 were paid workers, excluding military persons. A final sample of 24,527 persons was selected after excluding 6224 persons with missing data or refusals in responding to items necessary for the analyses. We compared the control group with the subjects with missing values, and there was no statistically significant difference in their PSHI and occupational-injury characteristics (p = 0.791 and 0.357, respectively).

General characteristics

The subjects’ general characteristics included sex, age, education level, and monthly household income. The educational level was divided into three groups: (1) middle school or below, (2) high school, and (3) college or above. The monthly household income level was categorized as follows: less than 1.5 million Korean won (KRW), 1.5–2.49 million KRW, 2.5–3.99 million KRW, and 4 million KRW and above.

Occupational characteristics

In the KWCS, occupational types were divided into 11 groups according to the 6th Korean Standard Classification of Occupations. In this study, those groups were re-classified into three groups: (1) white-collar (manager, professional, technicians and associate professionals, office workers), (2) pink-collar (service workers, sales workers), and (3) blue-collar (skilled agricultural and fishery workers, craft workers and those of related trades, plant and machine operators and assemblers, elementary occupations). Company size was included as an occupational characteristic and was defined by the number of employees. The occupational characteristics also included working hours per week, tenure, shift work status, type of employment, and the presence of labor unions. Working hours were classified according to the South Korean Labor Standards Act, with 52 h as the standard, comprised of 40 working hours and 12 overtime working hours.

Job-related factors

Risk factors were classified into three categories: (1) physical risk factors (vibrations, noise, high and low temperatures), (2) biochemical risk factors (breathing in smoke or fumes, breathing in vapors such as solvents and thinners, exposure to chemical agents or infectious materials), and (3) ergonomic risk factors (tiring or painful positions, lifting or moving people, carrying or moving heavy loads, standing, repetitive hand or arm movements). Being exposed to risk factors was defined as exposure for approximately ≥1/4 of the work hours. Usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) was categorized as those who did not require it (no need), those who required it and always wore it (need/wear), and those who required it but did not wear it (need/no wear).

Provision of safety and health information (PSHI)

A positive PSHI status was present if the subject responded “Very well informed” or “Well informed” to the question “Regarding the health and safety risks related to performance of your job, how well informed would you say you are?”

Occupational injuries and injury risk assessment

Occupational injuries were assessed by using the question “Over the last 12 months, did you suffer from any of the following health problems?” and the sub-question “Injuries (be hurt by accident).” Anyone who answered “Yes” was considered as having had one or more injuries. Those who responded with “Yes” to the question “If there was an injury, was it related with your job?” were defined as having experienced occupational injuries. We also assessed the injury risk at the workplace. Belonging to the high-risk group for occupational injuries was determined if the answer was “Always,” “Most of the time,” or “Sometimes” to the question “If you make mistakes in your work, could it cause…” with the sub-question “Physical injury to yourself” or “Physical injury to other people.” If the answer was “Rarely” or “Never,” the subject was classified as a low-risk group member for occupational injuries.

Statistical analyses

Chi-squared tests were used to determine the relevance of the subjects’ characteristics to the PSHI status and occupational injuries. General characteristics, occupational characteristics, job-related factors, and the PSHI were independent variables. The main dependent variables included occupational injuries and the PSHI; the latter used to examine poorly informed groups. Crude (unadjusted) and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated via multivariate logistic regression analyses to estimate the association between PSHI and occupational injuries. The ORs were adjusted for variables which showed a statistically significant association with occupational injury among general characteristics (age, sex, education level, monthly household income) (Model I), or occupational characteristics (working hours per week, tenure, existence of labor unions) and job-related factors (physical risk factors, biochemical risk factors, PPE) (Model II). Study subjects were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups, depending on the probability of occupational injuries. All analyses were performed by using SPSS ver. 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) after stratifying the data by the risk of occupational injuries. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. We used the original data to show the number (N) of people and applied weighted analyses to display the overall proportions (%) as well as the p-values.

Results

1. Characteristics of study subjects depending on the risk of occupational injuries

Of the 24,527 subjects, 74.1% were placed in the low-risk group and 25.9% were placed in the high-risk group. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed for age, sex, education level, monthly income, working hours per week, tenure, shift work, type of employment, occupational type, risk factor exposure, and PPE use, with the significance of the differences in the last three variables being particularly pronounced. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the number of employees or the presence of labor unions. The overall occupational-injury rate was 1.0%, and the injury rate differed significantly between the low-risk (0.4%) and high-risk (3.1%) groups (Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics of study subjects according to occupational injury risk

Variables

Total

Risk of occupational injury

  

Low-risk

High-risk

p-valuec

Na

%b

Na

%b

Na

%b

Total

24,527

100

18,177

74.1

6350

25.9

 

General characteristics

Age (years)

 15–29

3454

13.6

2746

14.6

708

10.7

< 0.001

 30–39

6151

26.3

4811

27.9

1340

21.3

 

 40–49

7092

29.1

5284

29.2

1808

28.8

 

 50–59

4920

19.7

3349

17.9

1571

25.1

 

 ≥ 60

2910

11.3

1987

10.4

923

14.1

 

Sex

 Male

12,639

51.8

8640

47.8

3999

64.1

< 0.001

 Female

11,888

48.2

9537

52.2

2351

35.9

 

Education level

 Middle school or below

2996

11.3

1887

9.4

1109

17.0

< 0.001

 High school

9455

36.8

6266

32.4

3189

50.0

 

 College or above

12,076

52.0

10,024

58.2

2052

33.1

 

Monthly income (KRW 10,000)

 < 150

7435

27.3

5501

27.1

1934

28.0

< 0.001

 150–249

8510

35.0

6198

34.2

2312

37.3

 

 250–399

6467

28.3

4773

28.4

1694

27.9

 

 ≥ 400

2115

9.4

1705

10.3

410

6.7

 

Occupational characteristics

Occupational type

 White-collar

10,228

44.9

8943

52.5

1285

21.8

< 0.001

 Pink-collar

6441

24.2

4865

24.8

1576

22.5

 

 Blue-collar

7858

30.9

4369

22.8

3489

55.7

 

Number of employees

 1–4

5495

20.5

4047

20.3

1448

21.3

0.186

 5–49

12,514

52.2

9302

52.3

3212

51.8

 

 50–299

4459

19.1

3317

19.3

1142

18.5

 

 ≥ 300

2059

8.2

1511

8.1

548

8.3

 

Working hours per a week (hours)

 < 40

13,301

52.9

10,350

55.5

2951

44.9

< 0.001

 41–52

6796

29.3

4955

29.2

1841

29.5

 

 53–60

3087

12.5

2011

10.8

1076

17.6

 

 ≥ 61

1343

5.4

861

4.6

482

7.9

 

Tenure (years)

 < 1

3018

11.6

2203

11.3

815

12.5

< 0.001

 1–5

8846

37.2

6713

38.1

2133

34.4

 

 ≥ 5

12,663

51.2

9261

50.6

3402

53.1

 

Shift work

 Yes

2551

10.0

1643

8.6

908

14.5

< 0.001

 No

21,976

90.0

16,534

91.4

5442

85.5

 

Type of employment

 Regular

18,188

76.1

13,841

78.1

4347

69.8

< 0.001

 Temporary

6339

23.9

4336

21.9

2003

30.2

 

Labor unions

 Presence

3441

14.3

2506

14.2

935

14.8

0.219

 Absence

21,086

85.7

15,671

85.8

5415

85.2

 

Job-related factors

Physical risk factors

 Yes

9467

37.4

5243

27.9

4224

66.6

< 0.001

 No

15,060

62.6

12,934

72.1

2126

33.4

 

Biochemical risk factors

 Yes

6097

24.0

3017

15.8

3080

49.0

< 0.001

 No

18,430

76.0

15,160

84.2

3270

51.0

 

Ergonomic risk factors

 Yes

20,495

81.8

14,438

77.5

6057

94.9

< 0.001

 No

4032

18.2

3739

22.5

293

5.1

 

Usage of personal protective equipment

 No need

18,510

76.7

15,468

86.2

3042

47.8

< 0.001

 Need/wear

5478

21.2

2440

12.4

3038

47.8

 

 Need/no wear

539

2.2

269

1.4

270

4.4

 

Provision of safety and health information

 Yes

15,623

64.2

11,227

62.3

4396

70.1

< 0.001

 No

8904

35.8

6950

37.7

1954

29.9

 

Occupational injuries

 Yes

276

1.0

82

0.4

194

3.1

< 0.001

 No

24,251

99.0

18,095

99.6

6156

96.9

 

aUnweighted case numbers of workers

bPercentages based on weighted analysis

cDerived by weighted chi-squared test

2. Provision of safety and health information (PSHI)

The overall proportion of the study population with PSHI was 64.2%, and there was a significant difference in PSHI status between the low-risk group (62.3%) and the high-risk group (70.1%) (Table 1). There were significant differences between all subjects’ characteristics and PSHI status, which depended on the risk of occupational injury, but, with regard to age, there was no significant relationship in either risk group. Women had a statistically significant lower PSHI status than men in both groups. The lower the monthly income, the lower the PSHI status, and the smaller the company (i.e., fewer employees), the lower the PSHI status (p for trend < 0.001 for both associations). With regard to occupational types, PSHI status was lowest in the pink-collar group, a group that includes sales workers and service workers. PSHI status was significantly lower in the group without unions (61.7%) than in the group with unions (79.7%). Among the job-related factors, the group with the need to wear PPE had a higher PSHI status than the group that did not need to wear it. In addition, the PSHI was significantly higher in the PPE-wearing group than in those who did not wear a PPE (Table 2).
Table 2

Relationships between characteristics of study subjects and PSHI by injury risk level

Variables

PSHI (Low-risk group)

PSHI (High-risk group)

Total

Yes

p-valuec

Total

Yes

p-valuec

Na

Na

%b

Na

Na

%b

General characteristics

Age (years)

 15–29

2746

1541

57.6

< 0.001

708

459

67.5

< 0.001

 30–39

4811

3053

63.7

0.168d

1340

973

72.8

0.039d

 40–49

5284

3369

63.9

 

1808

1280

71.6

 

 50–59

3349

2087

62.3

 

1571

1084

69.8

 

 ≥ 60

1987

1177

60.2

 

923

600

65.6

 

Sex

 Male

8640

5757

66.2

< 0.001

3999

2976

74.4

< 0.001

 Female

9537

5470

58.7

 

2351

1420

62.5

 

Education level

 Middle school or below

1887

1064

58.5

< 0.001

1109

708

65.3

< 0.001

 High school

6266

3512

56.7

< 0.001d

3189

2179

69.1

< 0.001d

 College or above

10,024

6651

66.0

 

2052

1509

74.1

 

Monthly income (KRW 10,000)

 < 150

5501

2872

53.8

< 0.001

1934

1148

61.1

< 0.001

 150–249

6198

3816

61.6

< 0.001d

2312

1555

67.8

< 0.001d

 250–399

4773

3261

67.2

 

1694

1345

78.9

 

 ≥ 400

1705

1278

73.4

 

410

348

84.2

 

Occupational characteristics

Occupational type

 White-collar

8943

6050

67.4

< 0.001

1285

1024

79.8

< 0.001

 Pink-collar

4865

2465

51.6

 

1576

905

59.9

 

 Blue-collar

4369

2712

61.9

 

3489

2467

70.5

 

Number of employees

 1–4

4047

1887

48.5

< 0.001

1448

776

56.3

< 0.001

 5–49

9302

5723

61.8

< 0.001d

3212

2181

68.5

< 0.001d

 50–299

3317

2398

71.3

 

1142

935

80.9

 

 ≥ 300

1511

1219

77.9

 

548

504

91.4

 

Working hours per a week (hours)

 < 40

10,350

6479

63.0

< 0.001

2951

2072

71.7

< 0.001

 41–52

4955

3117

63.1

< 0.001d

1841

1326

72.1

< 0.001d

 53–60

2011

1152

58.2

 

1076

697

66.4

 

 ≥ 61

861

479

57.1

 

482

301

61.9

 

Tenure (years)

 < 1

2203

1132

52.2

< 0.001

815

518

67.2

< 0.001

 1–5

6713

3956

59.5

< 0.001d

2133

1379

65.0

< 0.001d

 ≥ 5

9261

6139

66.6

 

3402

2499

74.1

 

Shift work

 Yes

1643

1117

67.0

< 0.001

908

745

80.9

< 0.001

 No

16,534

10,110

61.8

 

5442

3651

68.3

 

Type of employment

 Regular

13,841

8997

64.6

< 0.001

4347

3185

73.3

< 0.001

 Temporary

4336

2230

53.8

 

2003

1211

62.7

 

Labor unions

 Presence

2506

1978

77.4

< 0.001

935

813

86.1

< 0.001

 Absence

15,671

9249

59.8

 

5415

3583

67.3

 

Job-related factors

Physical risk factors

 Yes

5243

3452

65.8

< 0.001

4224

3035

72.3

< 0.001

 No

12,934

7775

60.9

 

2126

1361

65.8

 

Biochemical risk factors

 Yes

3017

2012

65.7

< 0.001

3080

2255

73.2

< 0.001

 No

15,160

9215

61.6

 

3270

2141

67.1

 

Ergonomic risk factors

 Yes

14,438

8794

61.5

< 0.001

6057

4171

69.7

0.004

 No

3739

2433

65.1

 

293

225

77.1

 

Usage of personal protective equipment

 No need

15,468

8866

58.3

< 0.001

3042

1612

54.4

< 0.001

 Need/wear

2440

2179

89.4

 

3038

2621

86.5

 

 Need/no wear

269

182

66.3

 

270

163

62.1

 

aUnweighted case numbers of workers

bPercentages based on weighted analysis

cP-value of the weighted chi-squared test results

dP-value for trend in the weighted analysis

3. Occupational Injuries

There were various differences between the low-risk group and the high-risk group with regard to occupational injuries. The characteristics that showed statistically significant relationships with occupational injuries, regardless of risk group, were age, monthly income, working hours per week, physical and chemical risk factors, as well as PPE status. In contrast, there were no statistically significant relationships between occupational injuries and sex, the number of employees, or the shift work status in either group. In the low-risk group, the higher the age and the lower the education level, the higher was the number of occupational injuries (p for trend< 0.001), while there were no significant relationships in the high-risk group. Among the occupational types, the low-risk group had the highest number of occupational injuries in the blue-collar category, whereas it was highest in pink-collar workers in the high-risk group. Among all study subjects, the occupational injury incidence tended to increase with longer working hours per week. With respect to employment types, there were significantly more occupational injuries in the temporary workers in the low-risk group than for regular workers, but this difference was not statistically significant in the high-risk group. Regardless of injury risk status, workers without labor unions displayed more occupational injuries, although this was only statistically significant in the high-risk group. The number of occupational injuries was high in workers exposed to physical, chemical, and ergonomic risk factors (Table 3).
Table 3

Relationship between subject characteristics and occupational injuries by injury risk levels

Variables

Occupational injuries (Low-risk group)

Occupational injuries (High-risk group)

Total

Yes

p-valuec

Total

Yes

p-valuec

Na

Na

%b

Na

Na

%b

General characteristics

Age (years)

 15–29

2746

6

0.2

< 0.001

708

11

1.7

0.012

 30–39

4811

16

0.3

< 0.001d

1340

45

3.2

0.986d

 40–49

5284

19

0.3

 

1808

72

4.3

 

 50–59

3349

21

0.5

 

1571

44

2.5

 

 ≥ 60

1987

20

0.8

 

923

22

2.7

 

Sex

 Male

8640

38

0.4

0.829

3999

127

3.3

0.466

 Female

9537

44

0.4

 

2351

67

2.7

 

Education level

 Middle school or below

1887

24

1.1

< 0.001

1109

31

2.7

0.130

 High school

6266

31

0.4

< 0.001d

3189

111

3.6

0.393d

 College or above

10,024

27

0.2

 

2052

52

2.5

 

Monthly income (KRW 10,000)

 < 150

5501

37

0.5

0.018

1934

39

1.9

0.006

 150–249

6198

19

0.3

0.053d

2312

89

3.9

0.056d

 250–399

4773

17

0.3

 

1694

55

3.4

 

 ≥ 400

1705

9

0.3

 

410

11

2.7

 

Occupational characteristics

Occupational type

 White-collar

8943

25

0.2

< 0.001

1285

28

2.3

0.119

 Pink-collar

4865

20

0.3

 

1576

50

3.5

 

 Blue-collar

4369

37

0.7

 

3489

116

3.3

 

Number of employees

 1–4

4047

22

0.4

0.599

1448

47

3.1

0.943

 5–49

9302

43

0.4

0.216d

3212

98

3.3

0.481d

 50–299

3317

12

0.3

 

1142

34

3.0

 

 ≥ 300

1511

5

0.2

 

548

15

2.5

 

Working hours per a week (hours)

 < 40

10,350

44

0.3

0.042

2951

54

1.8

< 0.001

 41–52

4955

18

0.3

0.021d

1841

70

3.7

< 0.001d

 53–60

2011

11

0.5

 

1076

53

5.3

 

 ≥ 61

861

9

1.0

 

482

17

3.5

 

Tenure (years)

 < 1

2203

5

0.2

0.168

815

12

1.6

0.019

 1–5

6713

36

0.4

0.714d

2133

69

3.2

0.012d

 ≥ 5

9261

41

0.4

 

3402

113

3.4

 

Shift work

 Yes

1643

10

0.5

0.318

908

20

2.2

0.107

 No

16,534

72

0.4

 

5442

174

3.3

 

Type of employment

 Regular

13,841

48

0.3

< 0.001

4347

132

3.2

0.899

 Temporary

4336

34

0.7

 

2003

62

3.0

 

Labor unions

 Presence

2506

8

0.2

0.289

935

19

1.9

0.049

 Absence

15,671

74

0.4

 

5415

175

3.3

 

Job-related factors

Physical risk factors

 Yes

5243

55

0.9

< 0.001

4224

161

3.8

< 0.001

 No

12,934

27

0.2

 

2126

33

1.8

 

Biochemical risk factors

 Yes

3017

42

1.2

< 0.001

3080

128

4.0

< 0.001

 No

15,160

40

0.2

 

3270

66

2.2

 

Ergonomic risk factors

 Yes

14,438

78

0.5

< 0.001

6057

188

3.1

0.305

 No

3739

4

0.1

 

293

6

2.8

 

Usage of personal protective equipment

 No need

15,468

54

0.3

< 0.001

3042

66

1.9

< 0.001

 Need/wear

2440

24

0.9

 

3038

118

4.2

 

 Need/no wear

269

4

1.6

 

270

10

4.5

 

Provision of safety and health information

 Yes

11,227

47

0.4

0.406

4396

119

2.8

0.016

 No

6950

35

0.4

 

1954

75

3.8

 

aUnweighted case numbers of workers

bPercentages based on weighted analysis

cP-value of the weighted chi-squared test results

dP-value for trend in the weighted analysis

4. Relationship between PSHI and occupational injuries

There was no statistically significant difference in the low-risk group (p = 0.406) regarding the PSHI; however, in the high-risk group, the workers with no PSHI had a high incidence of occupational injuries (p = 0.016) (Table 3). After appointing workers with PSHI as the reference group, the ORs of occupational injuries in the high-risk group without PSHI were as follows: Crude (unadjusted) (OR 1.392, 95% CI 1.055–1.837), Model I (adjusted) (OR 1.454, 95% CI 1.095–1.932), and Model II (adjusted) (OR 1.812, 95% CI 1.330–2.468) (Table 4).
Table 4

Odds ratios of occupational injuries associated with PSHI in the high-risk group

Variables

Occupational injuries (high-risk group)

Crude

Model Ia

Model IIb

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

Provision of safety and health information (ref.c Yes) No

1.392

1.055–1.837

1.454

1.095–1.932

1.812

1.330–2.468

Age (years) (ref. 15–29) 30–39

  

1.560

0.750–3.242

1.420

0.668–3.018

 40–49

  

0.854

0.481–1.517

0.881

0.495–1.569

 50–59

  

0.661

0.392–1.113

0.678

0.402–1.144

 ≥ 60

  

1.196

0.711–2.013

1.241

0.736–2.093

Sex (ref. Male) Female

  

0.953

0.688–1.320

1.337

0.944–1.893

Education level (ref. Middle school or below) High school

  

0.610

0.354–1.050

0.784

0.455–1.352

 College or above

  

0.649

0.464–0.908

0.802

0.571–1.127

Monthly income (KRW 10,000) (ref. <150) 150–249

  

1.557

0.758–3.198

1.382

0.662–2.888

 250–399

  

0.715

0.385–1.328

0.853

0.452–1.608

 ≥ 400

  

0.808

0.436–1.496

1.013

0.541–1.897

Working hours per a week (hours) (ref. <40) 41–52

    

1.672

0.982–2.848

 53–60

    

0.934

0.562–1.552

 ≥ 61

    

0.708

0.423–1.185

Tenure (years) (ref. <1) 1–5

    

1.867

1.045–3.338

 ≥ 5

    

0.998

0.734–1.356

Labor unions (ref. Yes) No

    

1.704

1.044–2.781

Physical risk factors (ref. No) Yes

    

1.435

0.978–2.107

Biochemical risk factors (ref. No) Yes

    

1.230

0.896–1.688

Usage of personal protective equipment (ref. No need) Need/wear

    

2.030

1.096–3.760

 Need/no wear

    

0.828

0.463–1.480

aAdjusted for general characteristics (age, sex, education level, monthly income)

bAdjusted for general characteristics (age, sex, education level, monthly income), occupational characteristics (working hours per a week, tenure, labor unions), and job-related factors (physical risk factors, biochemical risk factors, personal protective equipment)

cReference group

Discussion

This study was conducted to examine the relationship between PSHI at the workplace and occupational injuries in a large-scale nationally representative sample of South Korean workers. We hypothesized that the importance of PSHI would differ depending on the risk of occupational injuries. Therefore, to determine the significance of PSHI related to occupational injury risk level, and because various characteristics of workers differed depending on their risk of occupational injury, the subjects were divided into two groups based on injury risk. In the high-risk group, there was a statistically significant relationship between PSHI and occupational injuries, and the occupational injury rate of workers without PSHI was up to 1.81 times higher than the rate in those with PSHI. Therefore, the better the safety information provided at the workplace, the fewer work-related injuries occurred, which is consistent with the results in previous studies. For example, a study that analyzed the characteristics of Korean wage workers during the 1st KWCS, conducted in 2006, showed that the odds ratio of occupational injuries in the group without PSHI was 1.29 (95% CI 1.05–1.59) [7]. In another investigation that assessed occupational injuries in Korea with health insurance and industrial accident insurance information, the rate of occupational injuries was higher in those who did not receive accident prevention education at the workplace than in those who did (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.42–1.84) [12]. In addition, according to Ghosh et al., poor safety performance by workers was significantly associated with occupational injuries (adjusted OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.45–6.63) [13]. Moreover, in an overview which summarized ten studies on the association between organizational and workplace factors with injury rates, an active role of top management in health and safety was associated with lower injury rates [14]. Thus, safety education and training within the workplace function as precautionary measures against occupational diseases, such as hearing and vision loss, as well as against occupational injuries [15, 16].

Statistically significant relationships between workers’ characteristics and PSHI status were detected in almost all characteristics analyzed in this study. The presence of PSHI was low when there were few employees and no labor unions, which is consistent with prior research [7]. This is because small companies and those without unions are thought to be unable to devote resources to safety aspects due to fiscal constraints in a highly competitive environment. As of 2005, the proportion of training investments in all investments by companies with fewer than 30 employees (0.2%) was less than one-eighth that of large enterprises (1.64%) with 1000 or more employees; on that basis, Kang et al. suggested that organizations providing technical support to small-scale workplaces should determine the risks in those workplaces and implement suitable customized safety education [17]. Women and the pink-collar group also had low PSHI status, which may be related to the relatively high proportion of females working in the service sector: In this study, 69.9% of pink-collar workers were women and the occupational injury incidence was highest for the high-risk group in the pink-collar category. This result suggests that PSHI at the workplace is urgently needed, not only for blue-collar workers but also for those in service-type occupations. The PSHI status was low in the group without a need for PPE but, in the group that did need it, a high PSHI status was observed in the workers wearing the PPE, suggesting that PSHI presence may lead to a high PPE usage rate.

With regard to PSHI prevalence, a study based on 2006 KWCS data reported that 4018 out of a total of 6998 workers (57.4%) were listed as having a PSHI [7]. In our 2014 study, there was a slightly higher PSHI prevalence (64.2%). In other words, the absence of PSHI declined from 43.6 to 35.8% over approximately one decade. This may be the result of emphasizing the importance of safety and health education, including the revision of the OSH Act. However, it seems that the absence of PSHI is still high; thus, more rigorous education on the effects of PSHI is needed.

Characteristics associated with occupational injuries differ depending on the injury risk: In the low-risk group, the factors that had statistically significant relationships with occupational injuries were: old age, low education level, low monthly income, blue-collar occupation, long working hours per week, being a temporary worker, physical, biochemical, and ergonomic, as well as the need for PPE. Many results in the low-risk group were consistent with those reported in previous studies. Generally, advanced age and high physical demands at work have been associated with an increased risk of musculoskeletal claims [18], likely leading to occupational injuries. Workers with small incomes and low levels of education had high occupational injury rates. A Korean study that examined different samples during the same year reported that, as workers’ income and educational status increased, their occupational injury experiences decreased [19]. A blue-collar status and long working hours were associated with a high rate of occupational injuries, and construction workers (i.e., blue-collar) in the USA who worked long hours were at high risk of occupational injury [20]. Temporary workers had a lower PSHI status than that of regular workers, and their incidence of occupational injuries was higher, demonstrating the vulnerability of temporary workers to occupational injury [21, 22]. In the present study, physical and biochemical risk factors at the workplace and PPE use were closely related to occupational injuries, which is consistent with results in previous investigations [23, 24]. With regard to PPE use, the proportion of respondents who did not need a PPE was 86.2% in the low-risk group and 47.8% in the high-risk group. PPE status displayed the most significant difference among the study characteristics related to the risk of occupational injuries; therefore, the necessity of wearing a PPE is the most important factor that indirectly indicates the risk of occupational injuries. Generally, shift work is associated with a high occurrence of occupational injury. In a study into the first KWCS dataset, the odds ratio of occupational injuries for workers in shift work was 2.40 (95% CI 1.65–3.50) [25] with similar results reported in overseas investigations [26, 27]. There was a high level of occupational injuries in workers with shift work in the low-risk group, but the result was not statistically significant.

In the high occupational-injury risk group, the factors showing statistically significant associations with occupational injuries were: age, monthly income, working hours per week, tenure, the existence of labor unions, physical, biochemical, PPE usage. Age, monthly income, and working hours per week exhibited no significant relationships with injuries in the high-risk group. Whereas long tenure, absence of labor unions, presence of physical and biochemical risk factors, as well as the need for PPE were associated with an increased occurrence of occupational injuries. There was a high incidence of occupational injuries in workers without labor unions, which can possibly be explained by the relatively few opportunities for individual workers to improve safety and health at work. Notably, PSHI status was significantly low in the absence of unions. Thus, it is necessary to offer options to employees encouraging regular participation in activities to improve safety and health issues at workplaces without labor unions [12]. Being male, in a small company, and ergonomic risk factors were associated with many occupational injuries in a previous study [28], but, in the present study, those relationships were not statistically significant.

Generally, the risk of occupational diseases is higher in smaller companies [29]. This is because workers in small- and medium-sized firms may be exposed to more health-hazard risk factors [30]; it seems that if an organization’s size is large, it can provide safety information more effectively and also systematically control worksite exposure to harmful factors [12]. In previous studies, an increase in injury risk among those who started a new job and an inverse relationship between job tenure and injury risk were observed [31, 32]. However, our study revealed the opposite in the high-risk group with the lowest occupational-injury rate observed in workers with less than 1 year of job tenure. This difference may be due to the particular sampling characteristics or to the control of additional variables in the other investigations. Alternatively, it could be that the more experienced the laborers, the higher the likelihood they work in a more dangerous job. Furthermore, as employees become accustomed to this level of danger, they may be subject to more frequent hazards due to momentary neglect or distraction during work.

In the low-risk group, the relationship between PSHI and occupational injuries was not statistically significant, but this does not indicate irrelevance of PSHI for these workers. We assert that groups differing in their risk of occupational injuries need different approaches depending on their likelihood of falling victim to job-related hazards. The statistically significant differences between the two risk groups were in occupational type, exposure to risk factors, and PPE use. In other words, blue-collar workers with exposure to physical and biochemical risk factors, as well as in need of PPE, are more susceptible to occupational injuries than other employees. The low-risk group results in this study were similar to those in previous studies. However, the high-risk group showed significant associations; mostly for job-related factors including physical, biochemical, and ergonomic risks, and the need for PPE. This indicates that high-risk workers are more likely to be affected by factors that are directly work related, such as the exposure to specific risk factors and wearing a PPE, rather than to more general or indirect factors. Therefore, PSHI might be more important in the high-risk group. This may account for the differences of occurrence of occupational injury between the low-risk group and the high-risk group.

This study has several limitations. First, because the KWCS has a cross-sectional design, the association between PSHI and occupational injuries may be bi-directional and, therefore, causality cannot be established; however, it is very plausible that PSHI has reduced the occurrence of occupational injuries. Second, because this study was based on questionnaires, some limitations, such as a recall bias, may be present in the data. Moreover, a “healthy user bias” could also be present; for example, in the case of critical or fatal injuries, the subject would not be able to respond to the questionnaire. Thus, there is a possibility that the incidence of occupational injuries was underestimated in this study [33]. Nonetheless, there was a statistically significant association between PSHI and occupational injuries in this study, suggesting that PSHI has a greater role in preventing occupational injuries than was expected. Our categorization of a high risk of occupational injury may not have been sufficiently objective; however, considering that it is difficult to judge injury risk as high or low by only assessing the existence and degree of harmful factors, our measurement approach appears rational. Third, we were unable to investigate the details of the occupational injuries such as the nature of the trauma, its severity, treatment, and sequelae.

In spite of these limitations, one of this study’s strengths is its epidemiological nature, which allowed us to examine the relationship between PSHI and occupational injuries in a nationally representative sample of the South Korean population. Fabiano et al. [34] classified the factors influencing occupational accident frequency into (1) technical, (2) economic, (3) labor organizational, (4) environmental, and (5) human, both individual and inter-individual. The KWCS includes these various occupational-injury-affecting factors, and its data were thus appropriate for our investigation. In addition, since the KWCS is conducted every 3 years, follow-up or repeated studies on the associations between occupational injuries and various characteristics might be useful in revealing secular trends and may serve as a basis for future studies into injury reduction in the workplace.

Conclusions

To prevent occupational injuries, multi-faceted approaches that consider different types and levels of injury risks are needed. Workers with no PSHI and in the high-risk group exhibited an elevated incidence of occupational injuries compared to that in the low-risk group. In the case of occupational-injury in high-risk workers, the provision of more stringent safety education programs is required. Further research is needed to elucidate the factors producing the differences in occupational injuries between the low-risk and high-risk groups, and the influences of PSHI in those groups.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

KWCS: 

Korean working conditions survey

OR: 

Odds ratio

PPE: 

Personal protective equipment

PSHI: 

Provision of safety and health information

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Safety and Health Policy Research Department (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute) for providing the KWCS (Korean Working Conditions Survey) raw data. The paper’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the OSHRI.

Availability of data and materials

The source of data is the Fourth Korean Working Conditions Survey (2014), Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute.

Authors’ contributions

SJI: The first author of this article. He designed the study, interpreted the results, and drafted the manuscript; MYS: Corresponding author of this article. He suggested the study design, collected the data, interpreted the results, and revised the manuscript; SGS: He revised the manuscript; KMG: He also revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Dongguk University Gyeongju Hospital, Gyeongju-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Republic of Korea

References

  1. Ministry of Employment and Labor. Analysis of the status of industrial accidents 2015. http://www.moel.go.kr/policy/policydata/view.do?bbs_seq=1482732506833. Accessed 26 May 2018.
  2. Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency. Pilot operation of occupational acute intoxication monitoring system 2017. http://www.kosha.or.kr/www/boardView.do?menuId=896&contentId=371530&boardType=A. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.
  3. Schulte PA, Wagner GR, Ostry A, Blanciforti LA, Cutlip RG, Krajnak KM, et al. Work, obesity, and occupational safety and health. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:428–36.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Craig BN, Congleton JJ, Kerk CJ, Amendola AA, Gaines WG. Personal and non-occupational risk factors and occupational injury/illness. Am J Ind Med. 2006;49:249–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Last JM, Wallace RB. Maxcy-Rosenau-Last public health & preventive medicine. 13th ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1992; p. 49–54.Google Scholar
  6. Sobal J, Valente CM, Muncie HL, Levine DM, Deforge BR. Physicians's beliefs about the importance of 25 health promoting behaviors. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:1427–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Park IK, Lee KJ, Lee SY, Park JB, Min KB. The relationships between enterprise-scale levels, safety and health information provisions in the workplace, and the consequential attack rate of occupational disease and injuries. Korean J Occup Environ Med. 2012;24:229–38. KoreanGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee MS, Park KO. Workplace safety education and management factors associated with the organizational safety culture in Korean manufacturing companies. Korean J Occup Environ Med. 2006;32:75–83. KoreanGoogle Scholar
  9. OSHRI. The Fourth Korean Working Conditions Surveys (2014). http://oshri.kosha.or.kr/board?tc=RetrieveBoardViewCmd&boardType=A&contentId=356435&pageNum=1&urlCode=T1|Y|404|370|370|404|||/board|N&tabId=404. Acessed 10 Dec 2017.Google Scholar
  10. Statics Korea. 2010 Population and Housing Census. http://www.census.go.kr/dat/ysr/ysrList.do?q_menu=5&q_sub=7. Accessed 10 Dec 2017.Google Scholar
  11. OSHRI. Guidelines of the use of the KWCS raw data. 2014.Google Scholar
  12. Lim HJ. Status and Characteristics of occupational injuries in Korea. Spring Conference of the Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2008;49:133–47. KoreanGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghosh AK, Bhattacherjee A, Chau N. Relationships of working conditions and individual characteristics to occupational injuries: a case-control study in coal miners. J Occup Health. 2004;46:470–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Shannon HS, Mayr J, Haines T. Overview of the relationship between organizational and workplace factors and injury rates. Saf Sci. 1997;26:201–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Koo JW, Park CY, Chung CK, Lee KS, Yim HW, Phee YG, Oh SY, Ham WS. The effects of knowledge and attitude about noise on hearing conservation behavior and hearing loss. Korean J Occup Environ Med. 1998;10:476–83. KoreanGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim SA, Chun BY, Kim SW, Jung SJ, Lee GJ. Change of visual function and lacrimation among male near-work inspectors in a TV manufacturing plant. Korean J Occup Environ Med. 2001;13:436–48. (Korean)Google Scholar
  17. Kang JC, Chang SR. Promoting effectiveness of occupational health and safety education program. Journal of the Korean Society of Safety. 2005;20(1):143–7. KoreanGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith PM, Berecki-Gisolf J. Age, occupational demands and the risk of serious work injury. Occup Med (Lond). 2014;64:571–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqu125.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim SK, Kim H, Lee K, Kang HT, Oh SS, Ko SB. The relationship between injury and socioeconomic status in reference to the fourth Korean National Health and nutrition examination survey. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2014;26:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2052-4374-26-1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Dong XS, Wang X, Largay JA. Occupational and non-occupational factors associated with work-related injuries among construction workers in the USA. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2015;21:142–50. https://doi.org/10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000107.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Artiles A, Alos-Moner R. Flexible employment policies and working conditions: flexibility strategies and working conditions in Spain. Spain: Report to the European foundation, Universitad Autonoma de Barcelona ed; 1999.Google Scholar
  22. Morris JA. Injury experience of temporary workers in a manufacturing setting. Factors that increase vulnerability. Am Assoc Occup Health Nurses. 1999;47:470–8.Google Scholar
  23. Chau N, Lemogne C, Legleye S, Choquet M, Falissard B, Fossati P, Lorhandicap Group. Are occupational factors and mental difficulty associated with occupational injury? J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53:1452–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318237a14b.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Bogale D, Kumie A, Tefera W. Assessment of occupational injuries among Addis Ababa city municipal solid waste collectors: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:169. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-169.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Park TJ, Paek DM, Joh KO, Park JS, Cho SI. The relationship between shift work and work-related injuries among Korean workers. Korean J Occup Environ Med. 2012;24:52–60. KoreanGoogle Scholar
  26. Fransen M. Shift work and work injury in the New Zealand blood donors’ health study. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:352–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Wong IS, McLeod CB, Demers PA. Shift work trends and risk of work injury among Canadian workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011;37:54–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rommel A, Varnaccia G, Lahmann N, Kottner J, Kroll LE. Occupational injuries in Germany: population-wide National Survey Data Emphasize the importance of work-related factors. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0148798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148798. eCollection 2016.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Fabiano B, Curro F, Pastorino R. A study of the relationship between occupational injuries and firm size and type in the Italian industry. Saf Sci. 2004;42:587–600.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim S, Cho SH, Kim CY, Ha EH, Hong YC, Kwon HJ, Ha MN, Han SH, Ju YS. Quality Assessment of group occupational health service for small and medium scale enterprises in Korea. Korean J Occup Environ Med. 1998;10:71–82.Google Scholar
  31. Bena A, Giraudo M. Temporary employment and health: a multivariate analysis of occupational injury risk by job tenure. Epidemiol Prev. 2013;37:29–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Breslin FC, Smith P. Trial by fire: a multivariate examination of the relation between job tenure and work injuries. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63:27–32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Min YS, Ahn YS. The association between blood lead levels and cardiovascular diseases among lead-exposed male workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43:385–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Fabiano B, Curro F, Reverberi AP, Pastorino R. A statistical study on temporary work and occupational accidents: specific risk factors and risk management strategies. Saf Sci. 2008;46:535–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement