Dataset Information

A qualitative assessment of safe work practices in logging in the southern United States.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The logging industry is recognized as one of the most dangerous professions in the U.S., but little is known about safety management practices on remote logging sites. METHODS:A total of six focus group sessions were held among logging supervisors and front line crew members in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas (N?=?27 participants). RESULTS:Participants perceived that logging was a dangerous profession, but its risks had been mitigated in several ways, most notably through mechanization of timber harvesting. Log trucking-related incidents were widely identified as the primary source of risk for injury and death on logging work sites. Human error, in general, and being out of the machinery on the work site were highlighted as additional sources of risk. CONCLUSIONS:Participants indicated high levels of personal motivation to work in a safe manner but tended to underestimate workplace hazards and expressed widely varying levels of co-worker trust. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:58-68, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

SUBMITTER: Conway SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7383958 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative assessment of safe work practices in logging in the southern United States.

Conway Sadie H SH Pompeii Lisa A LA Casanova Vanessa V Douphrate David I DI

American journal of industrial medicine 20161017 1

<h4>Background</h4>The logging industry is recognized as one of the most dangerous professions in the U.S., but little is known about safety management practices on remote logging sites.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of six focus group sessions were held among logging supervisors and front line crew members in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas (N = 27 participants).<h4>Results</h4>Participants perceived that logging was a dangerous profession, but its risks had been mitigated in several ways, most notably ...[more]

PMID: 27747911

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an existential threat to many US residential colleges; either they open their doors to students in September or they risk serious financial consequences.ObjectiveTo define severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening performance standards that would permit the safe return of students to US residential college campuses for the fall 2020 semester.Design, setting, and participantsThis analytic modeling study included a hypothetical cohort of 4990 students without SARS-CoV-2 infection and 10 with undetected, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection at the start of the semester. The decision and cost-effectiveness analyses were linked to a compartmental epidemic model to evaluate symptom-based screening and tests of varying frequency (ie, every 1, 2, 3, and 7 days), sensitivity (ie, 70%-99%), specificity (ie, 98%-99.7%), and cost (ie, $10/test-$50/test). Reproductive numbers (Rt) were 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5, defining 3 epidemic scenarios, with additional infections imported via exogenous shocks. The model assumed a symptomatic case fatality risk of 0.05% and a 30% probability that infection would eventually lead to observable COVID-19-defining symptoms in the cohort. Model projections were for an 80-day, abbreviated fall 2020 semester. This study adhered to US government guidance for parameterization data.Main outcomes and measuresCumulative tests, infections, and costs; daily isolation dormitory census; incremental cost-effectiveness; and budget impact.ResultsAt the start of the semester, the hypothetical cohort of 5000 students included 4990 (99.8%) with no SARS-CoV-2 infection and 10 (0.2%) with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Assuming an Rt of 2.5 and daily screening with 70% sensitivity, a test with 98% specificity yielded 162 cumulative student infections and a mean isolation dormitory daily census of 116, with 21 students (18%) with true-positive results. Screening every 2 days resulted in 243 cumulative infections and a mean daily isolation census of 76, with 28 students (37%) with true-positive results. Screening every 7 days resulted in 1840 cumulative infections and a mean daily isolation census of 121 students, with 108 students (90%) with true-positive results. Across all scenarios, test frequency was more strongly associated with cumulative infection than test sensitivity. This model did not identify symptom-based screening alone as sufficient to contain an outbreak under any of the scenarios we considered. Cost-effectiveness analysis selected screening with a test with 70% sensitivity every 2, 1, or 7 days as the preferred strategy for an Rt of 2.5, 3.5, or 1.5, respectively, implying screening costs of $470, $910, or $120, respectively, per student per semester.Conclusions and relevanceIn this analytic modeling study, screening every 2 days using a rapid, inexpensive, and even poorly sensitive (>70%) test, coupled with strict behavioral interventions to keep Rt less than 2.5, is estimated to maintain a controllable number of COVID-19 infections and permit the safe return of students to campus.

Dataset Information

A qualitative assessment of safe work practices in logging in the southern United States.

Publications

A qualitative assessment of safe work practices in logging in the southern United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets