Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (26)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kelsh, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sahl, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kelsh, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sahl, J. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 143, No. 10: 1050-1058
Copyright © 1996 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health

research-article

Sex Differences in Work-related Injury Rates among Electric Utility Workers

Michael A. Kelsh1, and Jack D. Sahl2

1EcoAnalysis Inc. Ojai, CA
2Southern California Edison Company, Health Research and Evaluation Division CA

Reprint requests to Dr. Michael A. Kelsh, EcoAnalysis Inc., 221 E. Matilija St., Suite A, Ojai, CA 93023.

Few epidemiologic studies have evaluated sex differences in work-related injury rates. In this study, the authors examined injury trends by type of injury, severity of injury, and how the injury occurred among a cohort of 9,582 female and 26,898 male electric utility workers employed during 1980–1992 by the Southern California Edison Company. Sex-specific unadjusted injury rates were higher throughout the period for male workers. However, after adjustment for occupation, job experience, and age, elevated rate ratios indicate that female workers have higher injury rates. Mantel-Haenszel summary rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals were 1.49 (1.43–1.54) for all types of injuries, 1.27 (1.16–1.39) for head and neck injuries, 1.48 (1.38–1.58) for upper extremity injuries, 1.11 (1.01–1.21) for back injuries, and 2.11 (1.97–2.25) for lower extremity injuries. The rate ratios were slightly higher for more severe injuries, which suggests that potential reporting bias was not a likely explanation for these findings. The authors conclude that differences between male and female workers in training, physical capacity, task assignments, and other factors could explain these injury trends.

men; occupations; sex factors; women; wounds and injuries


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Occup Med (Lond)Home page
H. Alamgir, S. Yu, S. Drebit, C. Fast, and C. Kidd
Are female healthcare workers at higher risk of occupational injury?
Occup. Med., May 1, 2009; 59(3): 149 - 152.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
O. A. Taiwo, L. F. Cantley, M. D. Slade, K. M. Pollack, S. Vegso, M. G. Fiellin, and M. R. Cullen
Sex Differences in Injury Patterns Among Workers in Heavy Manufacturing
Am. J. Epidemiol., January 15, 2009; 169(2): 161 - 166.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
S I Sulsky, K A Mundt, C Bigelow, and P J Amoroso
Risk factors for occupational knee related disability among enlisted women in the US Army
Occup. Environ. Med., September 1, 2002; 59(9): 601 - 607.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.