health and safety research proposal

A New Model Proposal for Occupational Health and Safety

• Conference paper
• First Online: 11 November 2021
• Cite this conference paper

• Mesut Ulu 11 &
• Semra Birgün 12  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering ((LNME))

1865 Accesses

Occupational health and safety aims to protect the life, health and safety of employees by taking measures for occupational accidents, health problems, occupational diseases and various risks that may occur in the working environment. Even if the assurance systems are fully implemented, the success rate will be adversely affected when it comes to the human factor. Although OHS is subject to various laws and procedures, the processes need to be improved and made lean in order to be implemented successfully. The workplace environment needs to be regular, visible and quickly accessible in order to be safe. Applying lean philosophy for this purpose brings great success in creating this environment. This study presents a “Lean Occupational Health and Safety Model”, which acts as a guide for meeting the occupational health and safety requirements of the environment. The aim of the presented model is to increase the success of OHS practices by making work environments lean and visual. Successful results were obtained by applying the model step by step to a laboratory. The risks identified as a result of applying the model were corrected using Lean Techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Badri, A., Gbodossou, A., Nadeau, S.: Occupational health and safety risks: towards the integration into project management. Saf. Sci. 50 (2), 190–198 (2002)

Article   Google Scholar  

Towlson, D.: NEBOSH: International General Certificate in Occupational Safety and Health. RRC Bussiness Training, London (2003)

Google Scholar  

Coenen, P., Gilson, N., Healy, G.N., Dunstan, D.W., Strakera, L.M.: A qualitative review of existing national and international occupational safety and health policies relating to occupational sedentary behaviour. Appl. Ergon. 60 , 320–333 (2017)

Fawaz, A.A., Jayant, R., Kim LaScola, N.: A classification scheme for the process industry to guide the implementation of lean. Eng. Manage. J. 18 (2), 15–25 (2015)

Birgün, S., Gülen, K.G., Anol, Y.: Yangın söndürme cihazları üretim süreçlerinin yalınlaştırılması, IX . Ulusal Üretim Araştırmaları Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, Eskişehir, pp. 661–672 (2009)

Baudin, M.: Lean Production: The End of Management Whack-a-Mole. Palo Alto (1999)

Ertay, T., Birgün Barla, S., Kulak, O.: Mapping the value stream for a product family towards lean manufacturing: a case study. In: CD-ROM of International Conference on Production Research ICPR-16, Prague (2001)

Hoppmann, J., Rebentisch, E., Dombrowsk, U., Zahn, T.: A framework for organizing lean product development. Eng. Manage. J. 23 (1), 3–15 (2011)

Ohno, T.: Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. CRC Press, New York (1988)

Hallihan, A., Sackett, P., Williams, G.M.: Jit manufacturing: the evolution to an implementation model founded in current practice. Int. J. Prod. Res. 35 (4), 901–920 (1997)

Saurin, T.A., Formoso, C.T., Cambraia, F.B.: Towards a common language between lean production and safety management. In: Proceedings IGLC-14, Santiago, Chile, July 2006, pp. 483−495 (2006)

Cudney, E.A., Furterer, D., Dietrich, D.: Lean Systems: Applications and Case Studies in Manufacturing, Service and Healthcare. CRC Press, New York (2013)

Nesic, B., Vasovic, D., Tanovic, P., Nesic, N., Nesic, L.: Lean implementation and OHS. In: The 15th International Conference Risk and Safety Engineering Kopaonik, 16–18 January, p. 232 (2020)

Longoni, A., Pagell, M., Johnston, D., Veltri, A.: When does lean hurt? – An exploration of lean practices and worker health and safety outcomes. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (11), 3300–3320 (2013)

Hamja, A., Maalouf, M., Hasle, P.: The effect of lean on occupational health and safety and productivity in the garment industry – a literature review. Prod. Manuf. Res. 7 (1), 316–334 (2019)

Gnoni, M.G., Andriulo, S., Maggio, G., Nardone, P.: Lean occupational safety: an application for a near-miss management system design. Saf. Sci., 53 , 96–104 (2019)

Doğan, Y., Özkütük, A., Doğan, Ö.: Laboratuvar Güvenliğinde “5S” Yönteminin Uygulaması ve Çalışan Memnuniyeti Üzerine Etkisi. Mikrobiyol Bul. 48 (2), 300–310 (2014)

Sukdeo, N.: The application of 6S methodology as a lean improvement tool in an ink manufacturing company. In: IEEE, pp. 1666–1671 (2017)

Babur, F., Cevikcan, E., Durmuşoğlu, B.: Axiomatic design for lean-oriented occupational health and safety systems: an application in shipbuilding industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 100 , 88–109 (2016)

Dos Santos, E.F., Dos Santos, L., Nunes, L.: Methodology of risk analysis to health and occupational safety integrated for the principles of lean manufacturing. Adv. Soc. Occup. Ergon. 487 (2017)

Wu, X., Yuan, H., Wang, G., Li, S., Wu, G.: Impacts of lean construction on safety systems: a system dynamics approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 16 , 221 (2019)

Jiménez, M., Romero, L., Fernández, J., Espinosa, M., Domínguez, M.: Extension of the lean 5s methodology to 6s with an additional layer to ensure occupational safety and health levels. Sustainability 11 , 3827 (2019)

Anzen (2020). http://www.gembapartner.com/hizmetler/anzen-guvenligi/

Ulu, M.: İş sağlığı ve güvenliği alanında yalın tekniklerin kullanımı: Bir laboratuvar uygulaması, Master Thesis, Beykent Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey (2017)

Ilbahar, E., Karaşan, A., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C.: A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy inference system. Saf. Sci. 103 , 124–136 (2018)

Ulu, M., Şahin, H.: Hata türü ve etkileri analizi tekniği ile bir mühendislik fakültesinde risk değerlendirmesi. Electron. Lett. Sci. Eng. 16 (2), 63–76 (2020)

Galante, E., Bordalo, D., Nobrega, M.: Risk assessment methodology: quantitative HazOp. J. Saf. Eng. 3 (2), 31–36 (2014)

Deng, X.W., Feng, Y.X., Liang, L., Jiang, D.X.: Failure tree analysis of security system in large steam turbine. East China Electr. Power 40 (1), 92–95 (2012)

Rausand, M.: Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications, vol. 115. Wiley, Hoboken (2013)

Imai, M.: KAIZEN ‐ The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. Random House, New York (1986)

Berger, A.: Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational designs. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 8 (2), 110–117 (1997)

Graban, M., Swartz, J.E.: Healthcare Kaizen: Engaging Front-Line Staff in Sustainable Continuous Improvements. CRC Press, New York (2018)

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T.: Lean Thinking. Free Press, New York (2003)

Chapman, D.: Clean house with lean 5S. Qual. Prog. I , 27–32 (2005)

Alli, B.O.: Fundamental Principles of Occupational Health and Safety. International Labor Office, Geneva (2018)

Filip, F.C., Marascu-Klein, V.: The 5S lean method as a tool of industrial management performances. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1–6 (2015)

Monden, Y.: Toyota Production System. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross (1983)

Kumar, C.S., Panneerselvam, R.: Literature review of JIT-KANBAN system. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 32 , 393–408 (2007)

Spearman, M.L., Woodruff, D.L., Hopp, W.: Conwip: a pull alternative to kanban. Int. J. Prod. Res. 28 (5), 879–894 (1990)

Chand, G., Shirvani, B.: Implementation of TPM in cellular manufacture. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 103 , 149–154 (2000)

McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., Cua, K.O.: The impact of total productive maintenance practices on manufacturing performance. J. Oper. Manage. 19 , 39–58 (2001)

Rishi, J.P., Ramachandra, C.G., Srinivas, T.R.: Keys to succeed in implementing Total Preventive Maintenance (TPM) and lean strategies. Int. J. Mod. Trends Sci. Technolo. 2 (07), 25–30 (2016)

Wireman, T.: Total Productive Maintenance. Industrial Press, New York (2004)

Kusiak, A.: The generalized group technology concept. Int. J. Prod. Res. 25 (4), 561–569 (1987)

Singh, N., Rajamani, D.: Cellular Manufacturing Systems: Design, Planning and Control. Chapman & Hall, London (1996)

Book   Google Scholar  

Irani, S.A.: Handbook of Cellular Manufacturing Systems. Wiley, New York (1999)

Hyer, N., Wemmerlov, U.: Reorganizing The Factory: Competing Through Cellular Manufacturing. Productivity Press, Portland (2002)

Ham, L., Hitomi, K., Yoshida, T.: Group Technology: Applications to Production Management. Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing, Boston (1985)

Rybkowski, Z.K., Kahler, D.L.: Collective kaizen and standardization: the development and testing of a new lean simulation. In: Proceedings IGLC, pp. 1257–1268 (2014)

Nallusamy, S.: Efficiency enhancement in CNC ındustry using value stream mapping, work standardization and line balancing. Int. J. Performability Eng. 12 (5), 413–422 (2016)

Mikvaa, M., Prajová, V., Yakimovich, B., Korshunov, A., Tyurin, I.: Standardization - one of the tools of continuous improvement. Procedia Eng. 149 , 329–332 (2016)

Greif, M.: The Visual Factory: Building Participation Through Shared Information. Productivity Press, Portland (1991)

Bilalis, N., Scroubelos, G., Antonıadıs, A., Emiris, D., Koulourıotıs, D.: Visual factory: basic principles and the ‘zoning’ approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 40 (15), 3575–3588 (2002)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Occupational Health and Safety Department, Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University, Balıkesir, Turkey

Industrial Engineering Department, Doğuş University, Istanbul, Turkey

Semra Birgün

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Semra Birgün .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Institute of Production Engineering and Photonic Technologies, TU Wien (Vienna University of Technology), Vienna, Austria

Numan M. Durakbasa

Faculty of Engineering, Industrial Engineering Department, İstanbul Aydın University, İstanbul, Turkey

M. Güneş Gençyılmaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Ulu, M., Birgün, S. (2022). A New Model Proposal for Occupational Health and Safety. In: Durakbasa, N.M., Gençyılmaz, M.G. (eds) Digitizing Production Systems. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90421-0_29

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90421-0_29

Published : 11 November 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-90420-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-90421-0

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Impact of Workplace Health and Safety Conditions on Operational Workers' Productivity( Business Research Project Proposal)

Related Papers

Avanish Dubey

Naveen Kumar

Snobar Hussain

collins wetiatia

Caroline Biron

Dr Sunarsih

Tuan zamilah

RELATED PAPERS

Alex Ivan Torres Carcamo

prasoon garg

Theoría. Revista del Colegio de Filosofía

Call/Wa 0857 9154 2283|tips belajar bahasa inggris grammar

kursusbahasainggris 0102

Chemical Communications

Mahendra Yadav

Valérie Malavergne

Acta Biologica Colombiana

Lisette Blanco

Renato Aguilar

welven aida

Cahiers de géographie du Québec

Anne Gilbert

Circulation Research

EDGAR FERNANDO REGIN GUTIERREZ

elistynamaria pane

JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology

Warren A Katz MD

Mariana De Santis

Péter Bordás

International Dental Journal

Cor van Loveren

Revista Argentina de Microbiología

Luz Dominguez

General Hospital Psychiatry

Dennis Donovan

Nina Mironova-ulmane

Anuario de Estudios Atlánticos

Gabriel Escribano Cobo

Türk Kütüphaneciliği

fatih erdoğan

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Chandan Suman

Angelo Camerlenghi

British Journal of Nutrition

Journal of clinical nephrology

Mithat Tabaković

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Research Proposal Example

Health And Safety Research Proposals Samples For Students

2 samples of this type

If you're looking for an applicable method to simplify writing a Research Proposal about Health And Safety, WowEssays.com paper writing service just might be able to help you out.

For starters, you should browse our huge catalog of free samples that cover most various Health And Safety Research Proposal topics and showcase the best academic writing practices. Once you feel that you've determined the major principles of content structuring and drawn actionable insights from these expertly written Research Proposal samples, putting together your own academic work should go much smoother.

However, you might still find yourself in a circumstance when even using top-notch Health And Safety Research Proposals doesn't let you get the job accomplished on time. In that case, you can contact our writers and ask them to craft a unique Health And Safety paper according to your custom specifications. Buy college research paper or essay now!

Evaluation Of The Role Of Human Factors In Offshore Platforms And Systems In UK Research Proposal Example

Radiation protection for staff and patients in mri and radiotherapy research proposal examples.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your research proposal done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Required Application Instructions

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide except where instructed to do otherwise in this FOA. Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV . When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Telecommunications for the Hearing Impaired: TTY 1-888-232-6348

Part 1. Overview Information Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement Section I. Funding Opportunity Description Section II. Award Information Section III. Eligibility Information Section IV. Application and Submission Information Section V. Application Review Information Section VI. Award Administration Information Section VII. Agency Contacts Section VIII. Other Information

This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency Review. Awards are made under the authorization of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Section 20(a) and 21(a) (29 USC 669(a) and 29 USC 670); Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, Section 501(a), 30 USC 951(a); Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement.

Every day, millions of U.S. workers go to work expecting to return home healthy and safe. The workplace environment, however, can have a significant impact on a worker’s physical and psychological health. Depending on the job, a worker may be at risk for many different kinds of injuries and illnesses. Illness statistics are significantly underestimated due to the difficulty of recognizing or associating illness or disease with past occupational exposures; however, approximately 49,000 deaths per year are attributed to work-related illness. For 2010, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported a preliminary count of 4,547 fatal occupational injuries in the United States, about 12 per day. In addition, 3.9 million U.S. workers sustained either a nonfatal occupational injury or illness. Work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths are very costly to American society. In 2009, employers spent nearly $74 billion on workers' compensation ( http://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/research/Workers_Comp_Report_2009.pdf ).

Research and intervention activities are needed to reduce the tremendous burden and cost associated with occupational injuries and illnesses occurring in the American workplace.

The purpose of this grant program is to develop an understanding of the risks and conditions associated with occupational diseases and injuries, to explore methods for reducing risks and for preventing or minimizing exposure to hazardous conditions in the workplace, and to translate significant scientific findings into prevention practices and products that will effectively reduce work-related illnesses and injuries.

Proposals should address the research objectives supported by NIOSH, which include, but are not limited to the following:

• the identification and investigation of the relationships between hazardous working conditions and associated occupational diseases and injuries;
• the development of more sensitive means of evaluating hazards at work sites;
• the development of methods for measuring early markers of adverse health effects and injuries;
• the development of new protective equipment and engineering control technology to reduce work-related illnesses and injuries;
• the development of work practices that reduce the risks of occupational hazards; and
• the evaluation of the technical feasibility or application of a new or improved occupational safety and health procedure, method, technique, or system, including assessment of economic and other factors that influence their diffusion and successful adoption in workplaces.

The Research (R01) grant is an award made to support a distinct, specific, defined project to be performed by the named investigator(s) in an area representing the investigator's specific interest and competencies, based on the mission of the NIOSH.

Healthy People 2020 and other National strategic priorities

NIOSH is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2020" http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/default.aspx. Healthy People 2020 objectives related to occupational safety and health (OSH) are primarily addressed through the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA). NORA, established by NIOSH and its partners to stimulate research and improve workplace practices, provides a framework to guide OSH research. The goal of the NIOSH research program is to support research that is relevant, of high quality, and that demonstrates impact in reducing occupational disease and injury. Emphasis is placed on research projects that address needs outlined in NORA. NIOSH has created a Program Portfolio to broadly guide activities by categorizing programs into ten (10) major NORA Sector Programs that represent groups of industrial sectors, and twenty-four (24) cross-sector programs organized around adverse health outcomes, statutory programs and global efforts. Detailed information about the Program Portfolio can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs/

Applicants must provide a statement about which industry sector(s) and which cross-sectors are being addressed and a rationale for how the proposal will contribute to the specified priority area (this information must be placed in the Project Description/Abstract).

In addition to NORA, NIOSH has initiated a Research to Practice (r2P) initiative to reduce or eliminate occupational illness and injury by increasing the transfer and translation of knowledge, interventions, and technologies into highly effective prevention practices and products into the workplace. R2p is an interactive process in which the occupational safety and health community including researchers, communicators, decision-makers, and employer/employee groups work collaboratively to

• Identify research needs;
• Design, plan, and conduct studies;
• Translate and disseminate existing knowledge, interventions, and technologies to relevant users for
• implementation in the workplace ; and to
• Evaluate results to determine the impact on occupational safety and health.

Additional information about r2p can be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/r2p .

NORA sectors and cross sectors

Applicants must provide a statement about which industry sector and which cross-sectors http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs are being addressed and a rationale for how the proposal will contribute to the specified priority area (this information must be placed in the Project Description/Abstract).

Outputs and Outcomes

Governmental agencies/organizations have been faced with increasing demand to measure the effectiveness of their funded research in improving public health. Effectiveness can be measured by the products (outputs) of research activities and subsequent outcomes, i.e., benefits or changes at an individual or population level. Outputs are the immediate products or direct result of research activities. Examples include publications, reports, conference proceedings, presentations/posters, investigator career development, databases, tools, methods, guidelines, recommendations, education and training materials.

The causes of work-related injuries and illnesses are complex, and determining the effect that specific research activities have on them can take years. Thus, outcomes can be measured over time as either intermediate or end. Intermediate outcomes are specific changes that occur as a result of research activities. Examples of intermediate outcomes include public or private policy changes, conduct of training or workshops based on project outputs, citations in the literature, inventions and patents, and adoption of technologies or methods developed by the researcher. End outcomes are the ultimate goal of the research and the result of what individuals or institutions do with the knowledge or products generated by the research. Examples of end outcomes include reduction in workplace illnesses, injuries, fatalities, and/or hazardous exposures. Applicants must provide a brief statement about expected outputs and outcomes of their proposed research in the Description (Abstract) and in the Research Strategy (Significance).

See Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal Citations, for policies related to this announcement

HHS/CDC grants policies as described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement ( http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/aboutog/hhsgps107.pdf ) will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

• Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)

For-Profit Organizations

• Small Businesses
• For-Profit Organizations (Other than Small Businesses)

Governments

• State Governments
• County Governments
• City or Township Governments
• Special District Governments
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Federally Recognized)
• Indian/Native American Tribal Governments (Other than Federally Recognized)
• U.S. Territory or Possession
• Independent School Districts
• Public Housing Authorities/Indian Housing Authorities
• Native American Tribal Organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
• Faith-based or Community-based Organizations
• Regional Organizations
• Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions)
• Bona Fide Agents: a Bona Fide Agent is an agency/organization identified by the state as eligible to submit an application under the state eligibility in lieu of a state application. If applying as a bona fide agent of a state or local government, a legal, binding agreement from the state or local government as documentation of the status is required. Attach with "Other Attachment Forms" when submitting via www.grants.gov .
• Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). For more information on FFRDCs, go to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=512ff78311f427c00454772dcf21523a&rgn=div8&view=text&node=48:1.0.1.6.34.0.1.18&idno=48 .

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply. Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the HHS Grants Policy Statement ( http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/aboutog/hhsgps107.pdf ), must follow policies and procedures for foreign organizations described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. International registrants can confirm DUNS by sending an e-mail to [email protected] , including Company Name, D-U-N-S Number, and Physical Address, and Country. Special Instructions for acquiring a Commercial and Governmental Entity (NCAGE) Code: https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/Docs/US%20Instructions%20for%20NSPA%20NCAGE.pdf .

For this announcement, applicants may include collaborators or consultants from foreign institutions. All applicable federal laws and policies apply.

All Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD/PIs) must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA Commons account of the applicant organization. All registrations must be successfully completed and active before the application due date. Applicant organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at least six (6) weeks prior to the application due date.

Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following registrations.

• (Foreign entities only): Special Instructions for acquiring a Commercial and Governmental Entity (NCAGE) Code: https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/AC135Public/Docs/US%20Instructions%20for%20NSPA%20NCAGE.pdf
• System for Award Management (SAM) must maintain an active entity registration (formerly CCR registration), to be renewed at least annually. Use the Sam.gov Manage Entity function to manage your entity registrations. See the Grants Registration User Guide at SAM.gov for additional information.
• eRA Commons

All applicant organizations must register with Grants.gov. Please visit www.Grants.gov at least 30 days prior to submitting your application to familiarize yourself with the registration and submission processes. The one-time registration process will take three to five days to complete. However, it is best to start the registration process at least six weeks prior to application submission.

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support. For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

When multiple PDs/PIs are proposed, NIOSH requires one PD/PI to be designated as the "Contact PI, who will be responsible for all communication between the PDs/PIs and the NIOSH, for assembling the application materials outlined below, and for coordinating progress reports for the project. The contact PD/PI must meet all eligibility requirements for PD/PI status in the same way as other PDs/PIs. For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide ( https://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi ).

This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the HHS Grants Policy Statement .

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

NIOSH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one currently in review or one reviewed within the past thirty-seven months (as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement ), except for submission:

• To an RFA of an application that was submitted previously as an investigator-initiated application but not paid;
• Of an investigator-initiated application that was originally submitted to an RFA but not paid; or
• Of an application with a changed grant activity code.See this link for guidance: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/amendedapps.htm

Resubmission applications may be submitted, according to the Policy on Resubmission Applications from the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide. Such applications must include an Introduction addressing the previous peer review critique (Summary Statement).

Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov . If access to the Internet is not available or if the applicant encounters difficulty accessing the forms on-line, contact the HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGO TIMS) staff at (770) 488-2700 or [email protected] for further instructions. Hours: Monday - Friday, 7am 4:30pm U.S. Eastern Standard Time. CDC Telecommunications for the hearing impaired or disabled is available at: TTY 1-888-232-6348.

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide , except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications .

A letter of intent is not required for this funding opportunity.

The forms package associated with this FOA includes all applicable components, mandatory and optional. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this FOA. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate optional components.

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

• All applications should address one of the NIOSH Program Priority areas NIOSH Program Portfolio .
• Applicants should state which industry sectors and cross-sectors are being addressed and a rationale for how the proposal will contribute to the specified priority area. This information should be placed in the "Background and Significance" section of the "Research Plan" of the application.
• Detailed information about the NIOSH Program Portfolio can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs /.
• Applications should also include an explanation of how their proposed research will contribute to the NIOSH Research to Practice (r2p) initiative. This information should be placed in the "Background and Significance" section of the "Research Plan" of the application. Information is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/r2p .

Resource Sharing Plan

Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following modifications:

• All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan.
• Program staff will be responsible for the administrative review of the plan for sharing research resources and data. The adequacy of the resources sharing plan will be considered by Program staff of the funding organization when making recommendations about funding applications. The effectiveness of the resource sharing will be evaluated as part of the administrative review of each non-competing Grant Progress Report (HHS/PHS 2590 .

Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement. ,and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

CDC requires all text attachments to the Adobe application forms be submitted as PDFs and that all text attachments conform to the agency-specific formatting requirements noted in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide (Part I, Section 2) ( https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/url_redirect.htm?id=12000 ).

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the deadline to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.

Organizations must submit applications via Grants.gov , the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons , NIH’s electronic system for grants administration.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the deadline in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

All HHS/CDC awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other requirements described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement . Pre-award costs may be allowable as an expanded authority, but only if authorized by CDC.

For more information on expanded authority and pre-award costs, go to http://dhhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/grantinformation/hhsgps107.pdf .

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically .

Important reminders: All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package . Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management (SAM). Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the CDC mission ( http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm ), all applications submitted to the CDC/NIOSH in support of occupational health and safety research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the CDC/NIOSH peer review system.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Significance

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Investigator(s)

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves human subjects research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Environment

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? For planned or potential collaborations, is the commitment and cooperation of other interested parties adequate as evidenced by letters of support specifying the nature and extent of their involvement?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

Protections for Human Subjects

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials. For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines .

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children

When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines .

Vertebrate Animals

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section .

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

Resubmissions

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application currently submitted taking into consideration the response to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the application.

For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.

For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Does the applicant provide a statement about which NORA sector(s) and cross-sector(s) are being addressed and a rationale for how the proposal will contribute to the specified priority area?

Does the applicant provide information about how their proposal addresses r2P?

Does the applicant provide information about the expected outcomes and outputs and how this research will impact the field of occupational health and safety?

Applications from Foreign Organizations

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.

Select Agent Research

Not Applicable

Resource Sharing Plans

HHS/CDC policy requires that recipients of grant awards make unique research resources and data readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community after publication. Please see: HHS Grants Policy Statement

Investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a plan on sharing research resources and data.

Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan ; 2) Sharing Model Organisms ; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) .

Program staff will be responsible for the administrative review of the plan for sharing research resources and data. The adequacy of the resources sharing plan will be considered by Program staff of the funding organization when making recommendations about funding applications. The effectiveness of the resource sharing will be evaluated as part of the administrative review of each non-competing Grant Progress Report (HHS/PHS 2590; https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm ). See Section VI.3.Reporting

Budget and Period of Support

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group, in accordance with CDC/NIOSH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria.

As part of the scientific peer review all applications will receive a written critique. Only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review), will be discussed and assigned an overall impact/priority score.

Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA.

Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review for programmatic relevance. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons .

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the HHS Grants Policy Statement .

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIOSH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement . A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee’s business official. Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions . Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS, SAM Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.

All HHS/CDC grant and cooperative agreement awards include the HHS Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the HHS Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of Award ( http://dhhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/grantinformation/hhsgps107.pdf ).

Additional requirements are available at the following internet address: http://www.cdc.gov/grants/additionalrequirements/index.html

Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006: Public Law 109-282, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as amended (FFATA), requires full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds including grants, contracts, loans and other assistance and payments through a single publicly accessible Web site, www.USASpending.gov ( http://www.usaspending.gov/ ). The web site includes information on each Federal financial assistance award and contract over $25,000, including such information as

1. The name of the entity receiving the award

2. The amount of the award

3. Information on the award including transaction type, funding agency, etc.

4. The location of the entity receiving the award

5. A unique identifier of the entity receiving the award; and

6. Names and compensation of highly-compensated officers (as applicable)

Compliance with this law is primarily the responsibility of the Federal agency. However, two elements of the law require information to be collected and reported by recipients: 1) information on executive compensation when not already reported through the Central Contractor Registry; and 2) similar information on all sub-awards/subcontracts/consortiums over $25,000.

For the full text of the requirements under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, please review the following website: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s2590enr.txt.pdf

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission, downloading or navigating forms) Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726 Email: [email protected] GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and process, finding NIH grant resources) Telephone 301-945-7573 TTY 301-451-5936 Email: [email protected] eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons registration, tracking application status, post submission issues) Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free) TTY: 301-451-5939 Email: [email protected]

Maria Lioce, MD CDC/NIOSH/OEP 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop E74 Atlanta, GA 30329-4018 Telephone: 404-498-2575 Fax: 404-498-2571 Email: [email protected]

Price Conner, Ph.D. CDC/NIOSH/OEP 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop E74 Atlanta, GA 30329-4018 Telephone: 404-498-2511 Fax: 404-498-2571 Email: [email protected]

Mary Pat Shanahan Acquisition and Assistance Field Branch Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 626 Cochrans Mill Road Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0070 Telephone: (412) 386-4453 FAX: (412) 386- 6429 Email: [email protected]

All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement .

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections of the Public Health Service Act as amended and under the Code Federal Regulations. Awards are made under the authorization of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Section 20(a) and 21(a) (29 USC 669(a) and 29 USC 670); Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, Section 501(a), 30 USC 951(a); Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and

92. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the HHS Grants Policy Statement .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Occup Environ Med
• v.26(2); Apr-Jun 2022

A Study of the Effectiveness of Workplace Health and Safety Programmes in a University Setting in Canada

Zakia hoque.

Division of Community Health and Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St John's, NL, A1B 3V6, Canada

Veeresh Gadag

Atanu sarkar, introduction:.

Nearly a quarter-million people work in universities in Canada, making it one of the fastest-growing sectors. Although each university provides occupational health and safety services and training programmes to their employees, there have been no studies conducted on the impact of such programmes on employees’ knowledge, attitude and behaviour. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of dissemination of information of workplace health and safety programmes to workers at a Canadian university.

The study compared two cross-sectional online surveys of employees of a Canadian university regarding workplace health and safety with a previously conducted cross-sectional study and thematic analysis of key informant interviews to address the issues raised in the surveys.

Participation in health and safety presentations could enhance understanding and practices of safety. Age, employment status and duration of employment were associated with the levels of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of employees and graduate students. The key informant interviews highlighted some new initiatives such as the establishment of workplace health and safety committees in all university buildings; the development of a safety app and health and safety management system; routine annual inspections of all university building offices and laboratories; new orientation for undergraduate students where general safety rules are described.

Discussion:

University should have regular presentations on the available health and safety programmes and should increase the number of safety training programmes and keep track of the employees that have not received any training, particularly for those working in hazardous environments.

I NTRODUCTION

The labour force in the university sector in Canada is large and has considerable occupational diversity. According to Statistics Canada, out of 17 million-member workforce, 1.3 million (8%) are in educational services, and almost 20% of these individuals (~250,000) work in various universities.[ 1 ] The 2016 census shows that educational services in Canada had the fourth-highest rate of growth and more than half of this increase was in universities.[ 2 ] The working environment in universities is highly diverse, as there are a wide range of disciplines involving teaching, research, administration and maintenance. Due to this multifaceted working environment in the universities, employees encounter various types of occupational health risks. Despite the complexity of occupational risks, little has been written about occupational health and safety programmes of the university employment sector.[ 3 ]

In Canada, workers are covered by provincial or federal labour codes, depending on the sectors in which they work. While workers in mining, transportation, and the federal government are covered by the Canada Labor Codes, other workers such as employees of universities are covered by provincial health and safety legislation.[ 4 ]

Venables and Allender (2007) described the occupational health services in 93 universities in the UK by drawing on data from surveys carried out in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Most survey responses were received from universities and in-house services. The surveys requested self-completed information on occupational health services from each university. The results indicated that 50% of the universities had an in-house health service, 32% relied on a contractor, 9% used the campus student health service, and a further 9% had an ad hoc arrangement or no arrangement. On average, the service was poor, as usually only one half-day doctor with one full-time nurse and a part-time clerk were available to provide service. The wide variation among universities in staffing levels suggested that some universities might have less-adequate services than others.[ 3 ] A study examining the safety concerns of faculty members of a university campus in USA (Alabama) showed that women faculty members took more personal safety precautions than men and felt more strongly about the need for the improvement of safety features on campus. A 160-item questionnaire was distributed to the faculty members asking about socio-demographic information, daily campus activities, personal safety protection taken while on campus, awareness and attitudes about safety on campus, and reported cases of victimization on campus. A few months later, the authors examined the safety awareness of male and female staff members in the same university using the same questionnaire. The results indicated that although female staff members reported more regarding acts of violence against them than male staff members, there was not much difference in their attitudes towards improving safety features on campus. Faculty and staff members identified that they like to use avoidance strategies such as walking with a friend or using objects as a weapon rather than contacting campus security.[ 5 ]

All Canadian universities have Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) or similar departments through which Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) services are provided. All the universities follow a similar practice such as a) having health and safety committees on the campus, b) promoting health and safety and providing risk management services, c) conducting regular workplace inspections and reviewing incident investigative reports, e) creating annual reports about incidents, lessons learned, and providing recommendations to senior administrators, and e) organizing health and safety information session for the employees. The EHS unit mainly offers training on fire safety, first aid, laboratory safety, biosafety, X-ray safety, radiation and laser safety, WHMIS (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System), contractor safety, respiratory protection, ergonomics, hazardous waste management and disposal and also provides health and safety committee representative training.[ 6 ]

Despite the existence of occupational health and safety programmes in various Canadian universities, recorded evaluation of such programmes is sparse. Considering the large workforces in universities and their unabated positive growth, it is crucial to evaluate the existing occupational health and safety programmes in Canadian university settings. The aims of this study were: a) to evaluate the effectiveness of health and safety programmes through well-designed surveys of faculty members, staff and graduate students of a Canadian university (Memorial University of Newfoundland or MUN); and b) to conduct a key informant interview of the officials of MUN responsible for the operation of the health and safety unit to address the issues raised in the surveys.

In 2013, MUN contracted a third-party consultant to conduct an impartial assessment of the safety culture at the university. The consulting group was asked to do a complete assessment of the current state of health and safety programmes offered by MUN through the Office of the Chief Risk Officer and to identify gaps in the programme. The consulting group surveyed about 10% of the permanent employees of MUN in 2013 and produced a report in 2014. The Office of the Chief Risk Officer called the report a ‘Gap Analysis (GA) survey’. In 2015, to address the identified gaps and to increase awareness about the health and safety programmes, the Office of the Chief Risk Officer organized several health and safety presentations for MUN employees. We sought to examine if these presentations had any effect on the knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of the employees and graduate students at MUN and if their level of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour are sustainable over time. As a result, in consultation with the EHS Unit in 2016, we administered two identical online surveys to employees and graduate students at MUN. The purpose of the first survey was to answer the following research questions:

• Has there been any significant improvement in the perception of the workplace health and safety of MUN employees since 2013 when the survey on gap analysis in safety culture was conducted?
• Do knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the health and safety of MUN employees differ with respect to demographic variables?
• Is there any significant difference in the perception of safety practices between those who attended the health and safety presentations and those who did not attend these presentations?

The purpose of the second survey (using the same questionnaires of the first survey) was to assess the retention of health and safety knowledge over the period of 6 months. The intent of conducting the surveys was to gain insight into important factors that could make MUN's health and safety programmes more effective. The study also intended to explore the responses of the officials to the issues raised in the surveys.

We used a mixed-methods approach by collecting, analysing and integrating quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (interviews) data to gain in-depth understanding and corroboration while offsetting the weaknesses inherent in using each approach by itself.[ 7 , 8 , 9 ] Approval from the ethics committee was obtained. The date of the approval 23rd August 2016.

Survey participants

The survey participants in the two surveys that we conducted, included graduate students/researchers, faculty members and staff, as they work for the MUN as employees. As the surveys were anonymous, the second survey was sent to the same entire population and not to only the respondents of the first survey. This allowed us to compare the results with those of the independent surveys to determine if there are any changes in the knowledge level of the employees on health and safety-related information.

Survey design

Two identical online surveys of MUN employees were conducted between 1) October 19, 2016 and November 30, 2016, and 2) April 10, 2017 and June 10, 2017. The purpose of the first survey was to gauge the level of uptake of the information on health and safety, disseminated by the EHS Unit to the MUN Community through their safety workshops in 2015–2016 as well as through their broader reach-out mechanisms. Further, we wanted to study the effect of the knowledge about health and safety on the attitudes and behaviour of the employees and graduate students at MUN. The second survey was conducted six months after the first survey. It targeted the same population and followed the same methodology as the first survey and aimed to understand the retention of knowledge over time and whether the knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of the employees changed over time.

Our survey was developed based on input from the EHS unit. Some questions were based on questions from the GA survey with the intent of comparing the results. We also adopted some questions from the survey questionnaire of the study ‘Montana Tech Campus Safety, Security and Safety Awareness Survey’ conducted by Kristine Witt in 2011 at Montana Tech University, USA.[ 10 ] We conducted a pilot survey of some faculty members, staff and graduate students to ensure the readability, clarity, and organization of the survey questionnaire. We sent e-mails to all faculty and departments of MUN's main campus in St. John's and affiliated Grenfell campus in Corner Brooke, detailing the nature of the survey and provided a web-link (Survey Monkey ® ) to access the survey. The questionnaire with the references is presented in a supplementary file (S1) . At the beginning of the survey, online consent was obtained. The survey instrument was prepared to capture the awareness, attitudes and behaviour of employees and graduate students toward health and safety programmes offered by MUN. The questions were divided into three groups: 1. Knowledge (refers to the awareness and perception of the participants related to health and safety); 2. Attitudes (collects information on the viewpoints and beliefs of the participants about occupational health and safety); and 3. Behaviour (collects information on participants’ day-to-day safety practices/protocols at the workplace).[ 11 ] Questions 7-18, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31 and 40 were designed to test the knowledge of the participants regarding occupational health and safety; questions 19–20, 26–27 were combined to assess their attitudes; and questions 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 and 41 were grouped under behavioural questions (please refer to the questionnaire in supplementary file S1 ). The last few questions were on the perceptions of the participants about safety in specific areas on the campuses.

In the knowledge group, there are 18 questions. For each question, we assigned a score of 1 for the answer “No” and a score of 2 for the answer “Yes”. We added the scores of these 18 questions, which ranged from 18 to 36. We divided this range of responses into halves, 18–27 representing lower score and 28–36 representing higher score, following the procedure described in.[ 12 , 13 ] we used a similar procedure with four questions representing attitudes and six questions representing behaviour groups. The purpose of creating these categories was to test for the association between the levels of the knowledge, attitude, and behaviour of the participants among themselves and with the demographic variables, using frequency analysis technique.

In order to compare with the GA survey, we selected only the Yes/No-type questions (similar to the GA survey) and divided them into three broad themes: i) Environmental Health and Safety Office-related questions, ii) Faculty/Building-related questions, and iii) Department/Division-related questions.

Key informant interviews (KII)

After completing the cross-sectional surveys, we conducted KII with eight officials who have been responsible for the development and implementation of health and safety programmes at MUN. Among them, five officials were from the Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) unit, two officials were from the Workplace Health and Safety Committee (WHSC) and one official was from Facilities Management (FM). The interviews were recorded in writing. A thematic content analysis approach was used for data analysis. Each transcript was reviewed and coded to identify key emerging themes. We then compared the coding of the transcripts. The first question of the interview is about the initiatives taken by the EHS unit to raise awareness about health and safety among MUN employees after 2013. For further analysis, we divided the rest of the questions into three groups. The first group is about knowledge and awareness of safety policies. Questions 2–6, 12 are included in this group. Questions 7–10 are in the group on laboratory safety and workplace hazards. Questions 11, and 13–15 are in the group of MUN facilities and services (please refer to the questionnaire in supplementary file S2 ). The primary motivation of the KII was to collect further information related to the survey questionnaire and to find answers to some of the comments made by the participants in the surveys. Therefore, some questions asked in the KII were based on the outcomes of the survey results.

Data analysis

Apart from descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests were conducted for correlation and P - value less than 0.05 was considered significant. For data analysis, SPSS (version 24) was used. For a detailed statistical analysis, please refer to the supplementary file (S3) .

In the first and second surveys, 148 and 103 valid independent respondents were identified, respectively. Table 1 shows demographic information of survey 1 and survey 2 participants. There was an increase in the level of the participants’ knowledge/awareness about MUN's health and safety policies, when compared to GA survey (please see detailed findings in Supplementary file (S4) ). There was an increase in the level of awareness among the employees about the presence of the EHS unit at MUN and improved communication with the Health and Safety Committee compared to GA results. On the other hand, there were lower levels of knowledge about MUN's working alone procedures, and about AED (automated external defibrillator) locations. In all three surveys, the participants demonstrated little familiarity with the OHS Act.

Demographic characteristics of the university worker participants

We have observed some association between demographic variables and knowledge, attitudes and behaviour (safety practices) of employees regarding health and safety programmes. Table 2 presents the association between the knowledge level score and demographics of the employees. In the first survey, there are associations between ‘the level of health and safety knowledge of the participants’ and their (a) ‘attendance at the safety presentations’ ( P < 0.05), b) ‘employment status’ i.e., faculty/staff/graduate student ( P < 0.05) and c) ‘age’ ( P < 0.05). For a detailed statistical analysis, please refer to supplementary file (S3) [Tables # S3.3.1 , S3.3.2 , S3.3.3 ]. In the second survey, there are associations between: ‘the level of health and safety knowledge’ and (a) ‘employment status’ ( P < 0.05), b) ‘age’ ( P < 0.05), and c) ‘duration of employment’ ( P < 0.05). For a detailed statistical analysis, please refer to supplementary file (S3) [Tables # S3.3.4 , S3.3.5 , S3.3.6 ].

Cross-tabulation between demographics and Knowledge level score

* Low score: 18-27; High score: 28-36; α significant for survey 1, β significant for survey 2

Table 3 presents the attitude level score and demographics of the participants. In the first survey, there are associations between ‘the level of attitude towards safety’ and: a) ‘employment status’ a) ( P < 0.05), and b) ‘age’ ( P < 0.05). In the second survey, no association was found between any of the demographic information and attitude towards safety. Please refer to Supplementary file S3 for a detailed statistical analysis [Tables # S3.4.1 , S3.4.2 ].

Cross-tabulation between demographics and attitude level and behaviour level scores

α significant for survey 1, β significant for survey 2

Table 4 also presents the association between ‘the behaviour (safety practice) level score’ and ‘demographic variables’ of the participants. In the first survey, there are associations between ‘behaviour level score’ and: a) ‘attendance at the safety presentation’ ( P < 0.05), and b) ‘employment status’ ( P < 0.05). In the second survey, there is an association between ‘attendance of the safety presentation’ and ‘behaviour level score’ related to health and safety ( P < 0.05). Please refer to Supplementary file S3 for a detailed statistical analysis [Tables # S3.5.1 , S3.5.2 , S3.5.3 ].

Laboratory safety related responses from different groups (in percentage)

In our two surveys, we observed that those who attended safety presentations had a better level of safety practices than those who did not attend the safety presentations. Overall, there is no significant difference in the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of the employees and graduate students between the two surveys. In Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3, 3 , the Chi square test results indicate that the levels of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of the employees and graduate students have not changed much over the period of six months.

The only change we observed is a decrease in the knowledge of graduate students and researchers regarding laboratory safety in the second survey [ Table 4 ]. In both surveys, the participants reported that some places on the campus are safe [ Table 4 ]. In the first survey, 70% of the faculty/staff reported that they felt safe in the campus labs, and 51% of graduate students/researchers reported that they felt safe in the campus labs. Compared to the first survey, the difference in knowledge regarding lab safety between faculty/staff/administrators and graduate students/researchers decreased in the second survey (Please refer to Table 5 for the results). It can, therefore, be stated that the graduate students/researchers need more awareness sessions and training on laboratory safety.

Group wise health and safety ratings of different on-campus areas (except laboratories) (in percentage)

For KII, five officials from the Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) unit of MUN, two officials were from the Workplace Health and Safety Committee (WHSC) and one official was from Facilities Management (FM). During the interviews, the participants from the EHS unit highlighted several initiatives undertaken by their unit since the release of 2013 Gap Analysis (GA) results. Some important recent initiatives undertaken by EHS were: (a) Five to seven safety campus-wide presentations were organized, some of which were geared towards senior management and WHSC members; (b) MUN restructured 27 WHSCs on its campuses to provide adequate safety services and to meet the legislated requirements of CCOHS and the University OHS Act and Regulations. Each of the 27 WHSCs covered few buildings on campus; (c) In 2014, MUN implemented electronic safety reporting system (e-alert) (d) MUN Safe App was introduced in 2016; (e) Inspections of all university building offices and 350 laboratories are being conducted annually; (f) Orientation sessions for new undergraduate students each year are being organized, where general safety rules are described; (g) Established a chemical management system for labs; and (h) Created annual water sampling procedure for drinking water safety. The participants from WHSCs also mentioned some initiatives undertaken by the EHS unit such as (a) an increase in the participation of representatives from the EHS Unit to sit on the WHSC meetings and (b) more frequent laboratory inspections. The participant from FM mentioned some initiatives such as maintaining a good database to track the expiry date of the employee training; and more engagement in the weekly Toolbox Talks to discuss potential hazard assessment.

Most of the KII participants mentioned that the graduate students’ supervisors are responsible for providing information to the students on laboratory safety rules and whom to call first in the event of an incident/accident. They placed the responsibility for providing laboratory safety equipment on the Department Heads. The participants emphasized budget and manpower as the main bottlenecks for addressing workplace hazards in a timely manner. There were some suggestions from the KII participants to improve health and safety at MUN such as (i) making attendance of safety presentations mandatory and included as part of the new employee and student orientation packages, (ii) demonstrating the AED in every building, (iii) encouraging all university members to install the MUN Safe App on their phones, and (iv) constantly improving app on a regular basis.

D ISCUSSION

The survey results indicate that there are significant associations between: a) ‘attendance at the safety presentation’ and ‘participant's health and safety knowledge’, b) ‘level of attitude’ and ‘behaviour levels’, c) ‘employment status’ and ‘participant's knowledge level on health and safety’, d) ‘participant's age’ and 'safety knowledge level’, and e) ‘length of service’ and ‘participants’ level of knowledge on health and safety. In our two surveys, we observed that those who attended safety presentations had much better understanding and practices of health and safety than those who did not attend. It is clear from the results that there should be more emphasis on dissemination of the activities of the EHS unit to a larger number of MUN employees and students on a regular basis. The results of the cross-sectional surveys (our two surveys and the GA survey) show consistency in the three survey results. As presented in Table 2 , the respondents increased their awareness about the presence of the EHS unit at MUN and improved their (respondents) communication with the Health and Safety Committee over time. On the other hand, we identified some issues that need to be addressed such as less familiarity with MUN's working alone procedures, AED locations, and OHS Act. The dissemination of information on the OHS Act needs improvement, as this is the basis of all health and safety-related regulations, responsibilities, and rights.

Health and safety programmes should be evaluated periodically to ensure that best practices are being followed on a regular basis. Programme Evaluation always helps the institute to update guidelines as necessary, and to address areas of need or concern in the institute. In some of the previous studies, periodical evaluations were conducted to investigate any change or improvement in population health. Two cross-sectional surveys were conducted in1990 and in 1998 in Copenhagen, Denmark to investigate whether the prevalence of skin-prick-test (SPT)-positive allergic rhinitis had increased in an adult general population in Copenhagen, Denmark. A screening questionnaire on respiratory symptoms was distributed in random samples of 15–41-year-old people in 1990 and in 1998. Among the responders, random samples were invited to a health examination including SPT.[ 14 ] Two International Studies on Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) - questionnaires based surveys were carried out in 1994 and in 2001 among school children in Singapore to evaluate the hypothesis that the prevalence of asthma would further increase and approach to western figures over time.[ 15 ] A questionnaire-based survey was conducted in 1973 among 12 years old children in South Wales, Britain. In 1988, the survey was repeated in the same area among 12 years old children to again to observe whether the prevalence of asthma had increased.[ 16 ] Frequency of prescribed drugs use was assessed by a sample of elderly people 65 years and over in Nottingham in 1985 and 1989. The aim was to observe the change in numbers in the use of prescribed drugs.[ 17 ] Though in our study, we do not observe any significant difference overall in the knowledge, attitude, and behaviour of the employees between the two surveys, we observe a significant decrease in the knowledge regarding laboratory safety in the second survey. Our study is therefore, successful to investigate the change in perceptions of the employees regarding workplace health and safety over time.

This study used a mixed-methods approach as such a method allows for a more robust analysis.[ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ] We conducted online surveys as online survey can easily obtain large sample, it can control answer order, it required completion of answers, and online survey can ensure that respondents answer only the questions that pertain specifically to them.[ 18 ] Through the quantitative online survey analysis of MUN employees and graduate students, we learned of their perceptions regarding MUN's workplace health and safety programmes. These perceptions are a one-sided view of the survey participants, and quantitative survey analysis does not provide a detailed explanation of several issues. Through the KIIs, we collected further information related to health and safety programmes at MUN and clarified some of the issues raised by the participants in the surveys. Such as, the KII participants clarified that the graduate students’ supervisors are responsible for providing information to the students on laboratory safety rules and whom to call first in the event of an incident/accident; the Department Heads are responsibility for providing laboratory safety equipment; and budget and manpower are the two main bottlenecks for addressing workplace hazards in a timely manner. The KII participants also mentioned some recent beneficial initiatives such as, the arrangement of five to seven safety presentations campus-wide, restructuring of the WHS and EHS committees, the implementation of an electronic safety reporting system and the MUN Safe App, new orientation for undergraduate students where general safety rules are described, and development of the Health and Safety Management System. There had been a gap in understanding about health and safety matters between the employees and MUN health and safety officials. The qualitative analysis of the KII has filled this gap.

Our study is the first of this kind in the context of Health and Safety Program evaluation in Canadian university. Our study focused on the level of uptake of the information on health and safety disseminated by the university EHS unit through their safety presentations and workshops. We have also studied the effect of employee's and graduate student's knowledge about health and safety programmes at MUN on levels of their attitudes and behaviours. In addition, we have conducted KII interviews of the officials who are engaged in developing workplace health and safety programmes at MUN. As a result, improvements in the health and safety programmes have been planned by university officials. This is the practical implication of this study as the KII participants suggested some future procedures to improve health and safety at MUN such as making attending safety presentations mandatory for all employees and students; demonstrating the AED in every building; and encouraging all university residents to install the MUN Safe App on their phones.

There were some limitations of our study. The sample sizes of the surveys were small as participation was voluntary, and there was no incentive for participating in the surveys. The survey participants were not equally distributed across the disciplines, as the numbers of respondents from some faculties were much higher (Engineering faculty) than the number of respondents from other faculties (Arts and Education faculties). The survey data were anonymous, so our assertion on sustenance of the perceptions of the health and safety of respondents over the six-month period of time is not stronger.

In future surveys, undergraduate students should be included, as they are also exposed to similar risks as graduate students, and they outnumber graduate students. There is a sizable workforce involved in post-secondary university institutions in Canada, and this sector is growing. Varying ranges of working environments in the universities expose employees to multiple occupational risks. Safety training in a university is often not mandatory, and the survey analysis clearly indicates that there is need to increase the level of uptake on the information on health and safety programmes of university by employees and graduate students. Therefore, the universities should increase the number of safety training programmes and keep track of the employees that have not received training, particularly for those working in hazardous environments. Assured provision of financial resources is the key to maintaining a safe work environment and practices.

Key Messages

Universities should make safety training mandatory for all employees and graduate students. Therefore, there is a need to increase the number of training sessions to accommodate all eligible persons. Also, the universities should keep track of the employees and students that have not received training, particularly for those working in hazardous working conditions. The universities have to set aside financial resources for such regular trainings.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Associate Director of the EHS Unit of the Office of the Chief Risk Officer, Memorial University, Ms. Barbara Battcock, for her valuable suggestions throughout the survey. We would also like to thank all the anonymous participants who volunteered for the surveys and for the key informant interviews.

Supplementary File S1

Memorial University-Workplace Health and Safety Survey .

1. Did you attend the Safety-Presentation provided by Environmental Health and Safety Unit at Memorial University?

[ ] I don’t remember.

2. Employment Status

[ ]Faculty.

[ ]Researcher/Graduate student.

[ ]Administrator.

4. Which faculty/office do you belong to?

[ ] Medicine

[ ]Pharmacy

[ ]Engineering

[ ]Business

[ ]Education

[ ]Administrative office

[ ]Other (Please specify)

5. In which age group do you fall?

[ ] Less than 30

[ ] 60 or more

6. How long have you been on the Campus as an employee?

[ ] less than 5 years

[ ] 5-9 years.

[ ] 10 -14 years

[ ] 15-19 years

[ ] 20-24 years

[ ] 25 years or more

7. Are you aware of the presence of the Environmental Health and Safety Unit at Memorial University? (GA Survey, 2013)

8. Are you aware of Workplace Health and Safety Committees (WHSC- formerly known as Occupational Health and Safety Committees) of the building you work in? (GA Survey, 2013)

9. Does the WHSC in your building communicate with you? (GA Survey, 2013)

10. Do you read newsletters, brochures, bulletins, etc., relating to health and safety e-mailed by Environmental Health and Safety Unit? (GA Survey, 2013)

[ ] I don’t receive any of them.

11. Were you informed about the Occupational Health and Safety Act? (GA Survey, 2013)

12 Do you know where to report a safety concern, a safety hazard or accident? (GA Survey, 2013)

13 Do you know your role in the event of an emergency? (GA Survey, 2013)

14) Do you know the campus emergency telephone number? (GA Survey, 2013)

15. Do you know the shortest exit route from your work area (s)? (GA Survey, 2013)

16. Do you know whom you call first if you get injured at work? (GA Survey, 2013)

17. Are you aware that there are Automated External Defibrillators (AED) available in campus buildings? (GA Survey, 2013)

18. Do you know where the AEDs are located in the buildings you work? (GA Survey, 2013)

19. If AED training is made available through MUN, would you be interested in participating in the training? (GA Survey, 2013)

[ ] I am already trained in using AED.

20. In your experience, do you think that safety is a priority within your department/division/faculty/office? (GA Survey, 2013)

21. Do you understand your responsibilities for your and your colleagues’ health and safety? (GA Survey, 2013)

22. Are you familiar with MUN's health and safety policies? (GA Survey, 2013)

23. Please rate how safe you feel in the following areas on campus. (Montana Tech Safety Awareness Survey, 2011).

Please elaborate on any other particular areas you feel unsafe.

24. What precautions do you think you should take to increase your safety on campus? (Check all that apply). (Montana Tech Safety Awareness Survey, 2011).

• i) Carry a cellular phone.
• ii) Let others know where I will be.
• iii Take safety- training classes.
• iv Other, please specify.

25. Are you aware of Memorial's online reporting system for the health and safety issues/concerns? (GA Survey, 2013)

26. Do you report unsafe acts/conditions if you see them? (GA Survey, 2013)

’Toolbox Talks’ is the name of a meeting, which gives opportunity to Memorial University workers, supervisors and Department Heads a means of communicating health, safety and environmental initiatives as well as accident/incident ‘Lessons learned’ and expressing concerns, obtaining information, and resolving issues related to safety in the workplace.

27. Are toolbox talks/safety meetings relevant to your task? (GA Survey, 2013)

[ ] I do not know.

28. Have you participated in a toolbox talk/safety meeting? (GA Survey, 2013)

29. Are you aware of MUN's working alone procedures? (GA Survey, 2013)

30. Do you work after hours at least some times? (GA Survey, 2013)

31. Are you aware of MUN's safety escort service? (GA Survey, 2013)

32. Do you work at a lab or visit one frequently?

33. Please rate the following regarding laboratories on campus.

34. Is safety discussed in your workplace? (GA Survey, 2013)

35. Were you provided information/training on the safe use and maintenance of tools and equipment necessary for your job? (GA Survey, 2013)

36. Have you requested specific safety training appropriate to your position? (GA Survey, 2013)

37. Were you informed about the hazardous materials that are present in your workplace? (GA Survey, 2013)

For the purpose of this survey a hazard is defined as: ‘Any source of potential damage, harm or adverse health effects on something or someone under certain conditions at work’.

38. How many hazards have you identified in your work place in the last one year.

0 1 2 3 4 or more.

In the above question if your answer is 1 or more than 1 go to question 34 or else go to question 35.

39. How many of them have been corrected in a timely manner?

40. Are Employees given feedback on accidents that occur in your workplace? (GA Survey, 2013)

41. Do you have any concerns regarding your safety and/or security in your faculty or department?

If you answered yes please specify.

42. Which of the following do you think MUN should provide to help increase the safety of the campus community? (Check all that apply). (Montana Tech Safety Awareness Survey, 2011)

• Improve safety escort service.
• More emergency call boxes.
• Additional lighting.
• More security guards.
• More safety presentations.
• Self-defence classes.
• Other, please specify

Supplementary File S2

Key Informant Interview Questions

Q1. After the 2013 Gap Analysis survey on safety culture, can you recall any additional initiatives that EHS Unit has initiated to create awareness on health and safety among MUN employees?

Q2. In the surveys less than 50% respondents (first survey 46.6%, second survey 40.8%) notified that they had participated in the safety presentation/workshop in 2015. Is this level of participation satisfactory? If not what additional steps can be taken to reach out to more people at MUN?

Q3. The survey results indicate that, the graduate students and researchers have low level of knowledge/awareness on occupational health and safety programmes compared to the faculty and staff. Knowing that the graduate students and researchers are more exposed group to different safety critical scenarios,

• i Does this appear as a concern?
• ii How do you think the safety awareness of graduate students and researchers can be improved?

Q4. In the surveys less than 65% of the participants know whom to call first if they get injured at work. Is this level of awareness acceptable? What are the current mechanisms to educate researchers/employees about this information? How do you think this information can be disseminated more effectively?

Q5. The respondents have suggested to improve communication and implementation of the policies and to provide more auditing of safety policies by EHS department to ensure compliance, do you have a similar observation? Is there any continuing effort to improve this concern?

Q6. The surveys indicate that, among the people who said Tool Box Talk is relevant to them, the level of participation in toolbox talk decreased over time. Does your observation support this finding? If so, what can be done to increase the participation?

Q7. The survey analysis indicates that, the graduate students and researchers need more training on eyewash station and safety shower, can you explain the current mechanisms for training graduate students on these basic safety practices? Do you see any way to improve the provision of training and increase the level of participation?

Q8. The respondents suggested to install more flammable gas detectors and improve the splash proof safety goggles. In your opinion are the units/labs equipped with adequate gas detectors and splash proof safety goggles?

Q9. The respondents commented on shortage of lab space and shortage of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment).

• i) Is there any continuing effort to create more lab space?
• ii) Who is normally responsible to provide the PPE to the researchers/graduate students? How can one address the shortage of PPE in labs at MUN?

Q10. In the surveys over 50% of the respondents mentioned that, none of the hazards at their workplaces had been addressed in a timely manner.

• (i) What are the current practices for reporting, follow-up and correction of hazards?
• (ii) Do you see any bottleneck in the addressing the hazards in a timely fashion?

Q11. The survey results show that over 70% of the respondents want to participate in AED training. Is there any continuing effort to provide AED training to the employees and students at MUN?

Q12. The surveys indicate that a significant portion of the employees is not aware of MUN's working alone procedure though most of the employees are working after hours at the office. Is this a concern? If so what can be done to increase awareness on working alone procedure among the employees?

Q13. The participants have suggested repair of walkways and parking lots and removal of thick layer of ice from the parking lots to prevent slips and falls. Does this come under the purview of EHS Unit? If yes how can one address this issue?

Q14. Many respondents showed their concern about the design and usage of MUN Safe App. Is there a continuing effort to improve the App and make it user friendly?

Q15. In the surveys many of the participants have suggested the improvement of the on-campus safety escort service. How is the current safety escort service implemented and what additional steps can be taken to improve it?

Supplementary File S3

Table s3.3.1.

Chi-Square Tests for table 3

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.02, * p-value < 0.05 considered significant

Table S3.3.2

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.89

Table S3.3.3

Chi-Square Tests for Table 3

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 17.08

Table S3.3.4

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.67

Table S3.3.5

Chi Square Tests for Table 3

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.53

Table S3.3.6

a. 1cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.67

Table S3.4.1

Chi-Square Tests for table 4

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.71

Table S3.4.2

Chi-Square Tests for Table 4

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 21.79

Table S3.5.1

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.75

Table S3.5.2

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.94

Table S3.5.3

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.87

Supplementary File S4

Comparison of surveys

R EFERENCES

Researching Health & Safety Issues

Workshop description:.

Every day, countless workers are injured or made sick on the job. Effective research can uncover details about these preventable tragedies and inform your campaign strategies moving forward, as well as provide opportunities to engage with members to help pressure employers to make jobs safer. In this workshop, Kevin Riley and Ivy Torres from the UCLA Labor Occupational Safety & Health Program (LOSH) will walk you through the best ways to incorporate health and safety issues into your strategic research campaigns, how to find data on health and safety violations, and share best practices for working with Cal/OSHA and other enforcement agencies for best outcomes.

Workshop Leaders:

Kevin Riley is the Director at LOSH, where he oversees the center’s broad portfolio of worker training, participatory research, and capacity building initiatives. He has nearly two decades of experience in the occupational health field, having served in prior roles as LOSH Research Director and Program Director for the NIEHS-funded Western Region Universities Consortium (WRUC). Kevin’s research has examined the injury experiences of workers in the low-wage labor market, community-level associations between heat-related hospitalizations and outdoor work, and working conditions for residential day laborers and domestic workers. His interests also include the history of occupational safety and health policy advocacy.

Kevin teaches a course on worker health within the Fielding School of Public Health and the UCLA Labor Studies Program. He has served on advisory committees for the California Department of Industrial Relations, the National Occupational Research Agenda, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the National Clearinghouse for Worker Safety and Health Training, and the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics.

He holds a PhD in sociology and a master’s in public health, both from UCLA.

Ivy Torres is a Research Analyst at LOSH and is responsible for working closely with community partners and graduate student researchers to analyze issues related to worker health and safety. She holds a Ph.D. in Public Health from the University of California, Irvine, an MA in Chicana and Chicano Studies from San Jose State University, and a BS in Development Sociology from Cornell University.

Ivy is passionate about addressing occupational health inequities that disproportionately affect people from historically marginalized communities and believes everyone should be able to work with dignity. In the past, her research has examined how work contributes to the early onset of physical disabilities among immigrant Latina women.

Outside of work, Ivy enjoys reading fiction, going on hikes, working on jigsaw puzzles, and dancing.

Get Updates from IRLE!

Related sites.

• College of Letters & Science
• Social Sciences Division
• LA Social Science

Campus Resources

• Maps, Directions, Parking
• Academic Calendar
• University of California
• Terms of Use

• +44 7897 053596
• [email protected]

Get an experienced writer start working

Review our examples before placing an order, learn how to draft academic papers, health and safety dissertation topics.

Tourism Dissertation Topics

Refurbishment of Old Houses in London | English Heritage Listed Buildings

• Dissertation Topics

Health and safety refers to the study of various aspects of maintaining health and securing the safety of the people. Health and safety are crucial duties of the state. Doctors keep people healthy and soldiers provide security. Research in this field is important for people's well-being. Thus, students must choose quality health and safety dissertation topics for their research modules.

 Review Complete List of Healthcare Dissertation Examples  

Premier Dissertations has developed an extended list of 45+ exciting research topics and examples in health and safety.

If you would like to choose any topic from the given list, simply drop us a WhatsApp or an Email .

You may like to review ;

Mental Health Dissertation Topics | Healthcare Management Dissertation Topics

3-Step  Dissertation Process!

Get 3+ Topics

Dissertation Proposal

Get Final Dissertation

List of new health and safety research topics 2024, research topics in health and safety, trending health and safety thesis topics, health and safety thesis topics 2024, how does it work.

Our team will;

- Select health and safety Dissertation Topics - Draft a Dissertation Proposal (for feedback) - Draft 1st-half of Dissertation - Draft the Final Dissertation

The Importance of Finding the Best Occupational Health and Safety Dissertation Topic

Choosing the right dissertation topic is crucial in occupational health and safety. It directly impacts the policies that protect workers in the workplace. Good topics can make a difference in the world by ensuring fair labor practices and limiting exploitation. 

 For further dissertation assistance, please visit the following;

Dissertation Topic and Outline Service 

Review the Full List of Dissertation Topics

For more Occupational Health and Safety dissertation topics, please keep visiting our website as we keep updating our existing list of topics.

How Can We Help?

1 - Share new nursing dissertation topics with you to choose from 2 - Draft an outline on your selected topic 3 - Complete the dissertation proposal 4 - Complete any amendments you need 5 - Complete the full dissertation after the proposal has been approved

Get an Immediate Response

Discuss your requirments with our writers

Get Free Custom Dissertation Topic

Fill the following form to get a free health and safety dissertation topic based on your academic requirements.

The topic will be emailed to you within 24 hours!

Get 3+ Free Dissertation Topics within 24 hours?

Enter Your Phone Number

Academic Subject

Academic Level Select Your Academic Level Undergraduate Masters PhD

Area of Research

Discover More:

Related posts

Top 55 STEM Research Topics

Controversial Psychology Topics

70 Visual Aid Speech Topics for Your Next Presentation

Comments are closed.

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Studentshare
• Health Sciences & Medicine
• Health and Safety at the Workplace

Health and Safety at the Workplace - Research Proposal Example

• Subject: Health Sciences & Medicine
• Type: Research Proposal
• Level: Masters
• Pages: 7 (1750 words)
• Downloads: 5
• Author: jboyle

Extract of sample "Health and Safety at the Workplace"

• Cited: 5 times
• Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Health and Safety at the Workplace

Safety in the workplace, injuries in the workplace, safety, health and security at the workplace, health and wellness in the workplace, promoting healthy workplace, safety and occupational health, manager and employer interview, reputation and talent, analysis of health and safety in chemical industries article.

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about Americans and guns

Guns are deeply ingrained in American society and the nation’s political debates.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and about a third of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun. At the same time, in response to concerns such as rising gun death rates and  mass shootings , President Joe Biden has proposed gun policy legislation that would expand on the bipartisan gun safety bill Congress passed last year.

Here are some key findings about Americans’ views of gun ownership, gun policy and other subjects, drawn primarily from a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2023 .

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to summarize key facts about Americans and guns. We used data from recent Center surveys to provide insights into Americans’ views on gun policy and how those views have changed over time, as well as to examine the proportion of adults who own guns and their reasons for doing so.

The analysis draws primarily from a survey of 5,115 U.S. adults conducted from June 5 to June 11, 2023. Everyone who took part in the surveys cited is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

Here are the  questions used for the analysis on gun ownership , the questions used for the analysis on gun policy , and  the survey’s methodology .

Additional information about the fall 2022 survey of parents and its methodology can be found at the link in the text of this post.

Measuring gun ownership in the United States comes with unique challenges. Unlike many demographic measures, there is not a definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many American adults own guns.

The Pew Research Center survey conducted June 5-11, 2023, on the Center’s American Trends Panel, asks about gun ownership using two separate questions to measure personal and household ownership. About a third of adults (32%) say they own a gun, while another 10% say they do not personally own a gun but someone else in their household does. These shares have changed little from surveys conducted in 2021  and  2017 . In each of those surveys, 30% reported they owned a gun.

These numbers are largely consistent with rates of gun ownership reported by Gallup , but somewhat higher than those reported by NORC’s General Social Survey . Those surveys also find only modest changes in recent years.

The FBI maintains data on background checks on individuals attempting to purchase firearms in the United States. The FBI reported a surge in background checks in 2020 and 2021, during the coronavirus pandemic. The number of federal background checks declined in 2022 and through the first half of this year, according to FBI statistics .

About four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 32% who say they personally own one,  according to an August report based on our June survey. These numbers are virtually unchanged since the last time we asked this question in 2021.

There are differences in gun ownership rates by political affiliation, gender, community type and other factors.

• Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more than twice as likely as Democrats and Democratic leaners to say they personally own a gun (45% vs. 20%).
• 40% of men say they own a gun, compared with 25% of women.
• 47% of adults living in rural areas report personally owning a firearm, as do smaller shares of those who live in suburbs (30%) or urban areas (20%).
• 38% of White Americans own a gun, compared with smaller shares of Black (24%), Hispanic (20%) and Asian (10%) Americans.

Personal protection tops the list of reasons gun owners give for owning a firearm.  About three-quarters (72%) of gun owners say that protection is a major reason they own a gun. Considerably smaller shares say that a major reason they own a gun is for hunting (32%), for sport shooting (30%), as part of a gun collection (15%) or for their job (7%). 

The reasons behind gun ownership have changed only modestly since our 2017 survey of attitudes toward gun ownership and gun policies. At that time, 67% of gun owners cited protection as a major reason they owned a firearm.

Gun owners tend to have much more positive feelings about having a gun in the house than non-owners who live with them. For instance, 71% of gun owners say they enjoy owning a gun – but far fewer non-gun owners in gun-owning households (31%) say they enjoy having one in the home. And while 81% of gun owners say owning a gun makes them feel safer, a narrower majority (57%) of non-owners in gun households say the same about having a firearm at home. Non-owners are also more likely than owners to worry about having a gun in the home (27% vs. 12%, respectively).

Feelings about gun ownership also differ by political affiliation, even among those who personally own firearms. Republican gun owners are more likely than Democratic owners to say owning a gun gives them feelings of safety and enjoyment, while Democratic owners are more likely to say they worry about having a gun in the home.

Non-gun owners are split on whether they see themselves owning a firearm in the future. About half (52%) of Americans who don’t own a gun say they could never see themselves owning one, while nearly as many (47%) could imagine themselves as gun owners in the future.

Among those who currently do not own a gun:

• 61% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats who don’t own a gun say they would consider owning one in the future.
• 56% of Black non-owners say they could see themselves owning a gun one day, compared with smaller shares of White (48%), Hispanic (40%) and Asian (38%) non-owners.

Americans are evenly split over whether gun ownership does more to increase or decrease safety. About half (49%) say it does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, but an equal share say gun ownership does more to reduce safety by giving too many people access to firearms and increasing misuse.

Republicans and Democrats differ on this question: 79% of Republicans say that gun ownership does more to increase safety, while a nearly identical share of Democrats (78%) say that it does more to reduce safety.

Urban and rural Americans also have starkly different views. Among adults who live in urban areas, 64% say gun ownership reduces safety, while 34% say it does more to increase safety. Among those who live in rural areas, 65% say gun ownership increases safety, compared with 33% who say it does more to reduce safety. Those living in the suburbs are about evenly split.

Americans increasingly say that gun violence is a major problem. Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022. In the survey conducted this June, 23% say gun violence is a moderately big problem, and about two-in-ten say it is either a small problem (13%) or not a problem at all (4%).

Looking ahead, 62% of Americans say they expect the level of gun violence to increase over the next five years. This is double the share who expect it to stay the same (31%). Just 7% expect the level of gun violence to decrease.

A majority of Americans (61%) say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country. Another 30% say the ease of legally obtaining a gun is about right, and 9% say it is too hard to get a gun. Non-gun owners are nearly twice as likely as gun owners to say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun (73% vs. 38%). Meanwhile, gun owners are more than twice as likely as non-owners to say the ease of obtaining a gun is about right (48% vs. 20%).

Partisan and demographic differences also exist on this question. While 86% of Democrats say it is too easy to obtain a gun legally, 34% of Republicans say the same. Most urban (72%) and suburban (63%) dwellers say it’s too easy to legally obtain a gun. Rural residents are more divided: 47% say it is too easy, 41% say it is about right and 11% say it is too hard.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, and 15% favor less strict gun laws. The percentage who say these laws should be stricter has fluctuated a bit in recent years. In 2021, 53% favored stricter gun laws, and in 2019, 60% said laws should be stricter.

About a third (32%) of parents with K-12 students say they are very or extremely worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, according to a fall 2022 Center survey of parents with at least one child younger than 18. A similar share of K-12 parents (31%) say they are not too or not at all worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, while 37% of parents say they are somewhat worried.

Among all parents with children under 18, including those who are not in school, 63% see improving mental health screening and treatment as a very or extremely effective way to prevent school shootings. This is larger than the shares who say the same about having police officers or armed security in schools (49%), banning assault-style weapons (45%), or having metal detectors in schools (41%). Just 24% of parents say allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in school would be a very or extremely effective approach, while half say this would be not too or not at all effective.

There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive,   the June 2023 survey found . Majorities of U.S. adults in both partisan coalitions somewhat or strongly favor two policies that would restrict gun access: preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns (88% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats support this) and increasing the minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old (69% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats). Majorities in both parties also  oppose  allowing people to carry concealed firearms without a permit (60% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats oppose this).

Republicans and Democrats differ on several other proposals. While 85% of Democrats favor banning both assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, majorities of Republicans oppose these proposals (57% and 54%, respectively).

Most Republicans, on the other hand, support allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools (74%) and allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places (71%). These proposals are supported by just 27% and 19% of Democrats, respectively.

Gun ownership is linked with views on gun policies. Americans who own guns are less likely than non-owners to favor restrictions on gun ownership, with a notable exception. Nearly identical majorities of gun owners (87%) and non-owners (89%) favor preventing mentally ill people from buying guns.

Within both parties, differences between gun owners and non-owners are evident – but they are especially stark among Republicans. For example, majorities of Republicans who do not own guns support banning high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault-style weapons, compared with about three-in-ten Republican gun owners.

Among Democrats, majorities of both gun owners and non-owners favor these two proposals, though support is greater among non-owners. 

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Jan. 5, 2016 .

• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

Striking findings from 2023, for most u.s. gun owners, protection is the main reason they own a gun, gun violence widely viewed as a major – and growing – national problem, what the data says about gun deaths in the u.s., most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy