Does exposure to workplace hazards cluster by occupational or sociodemographic characteristics? An analysis of foreign-born workers in Australia
Access Status
Authors
Date
2020Type
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Source Title
ISSN
Faculty
School
Funding and Sponsorship
Remarks
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Gosselin, A, Daly, A, El Zaemey, S, et al. Does exposure to workplace hazards cluster by occupational or sociodemographic characteristics? An analysis of foreign-born workers in Australia. Am J Ind Med. 2020; 63: 803– 816, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23146. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited.
Collection
Abstract
Background: Disparities in exposure to occupational hazards may be linked to social position as well as the type of job a person holds. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of exposure to workplace hazards among three migrant worker groups and to assess whether social disparities in exposure for these groups remain after adjusting for occupational characteristics. Methods: Data were collected in 2017/2018 from 1630 Australian workers born in New Zealand, India, and the Philippines. Weighted estimated prevalence of exposure to 10 carcinogens and four psychosocial hazards (discrimination, job strain, vulnerability, and insecurity) was calculated for sociodemographics and occupation. Regression estimated the likelihood of exposure by sociodemographics after adjustment for occupational characteristics. Results: Exposure to workplace hazards ranged from 11.7% (discrimination) to 61.2% (exposed to at least one carcinogen). Compared with workers born in India, New Zealand born workers were over twice as likely to be exposed to diesel engine exhaust (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.60) and 60% more likely to be exposed to at least one carcinogen (aOR = 1.60) but less likely to be exposed to any psychosocial hazard. Social disparities by country of birth, sex, age, education, and number of years in Australia, as well as company size, employment type, and hours, worked remained associated with greater likelihood of reporting one or more workplace hazards after adjusting for occupational characteristics. Conclusion: Examining sociodemographic as well as occupational characteristics helps to clarify groups most likely to be exposed to workplace hazards who can be hidden when examining occupational characteristics alone.