Exposure to chemical agents in the Spanish construction sector: A risk assumed and accepted by workers

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The weak preventive culture among workers in the construction sector leads to the underestimation of risks posed by the presence or handling of chemical agents on-site and, consequently, harms workers’ health.

OBJECTIVE:

The objectives of this paper are to classify exposure to chemical agents present or used on-site, determine workers’ perception of said agents and establish the influence that socio-demographic variables have on chemical agent exposure and the perception of such exposure.

METHODS:

A total of 490 workers in the Spanish construction sector participated in this study. The data were gathered through a self-administered questionnaire that explored socio-demographic characteristics, the degree of exposure to chemical agents, attitudes toward exposure and the prevention of consequences. The underlying dimensions of perception were researched using an adapted version of the questionnaire used by the Paul Slovic group to apply the psychometric paradigm.

RESULTS:

The levels of exposure to and handling of chemical agents found in the sample were high and moderate, respectively. The participants were found to have advanced knowledge about the effects of exposure, with the majority of the workers considering the probability of suffering a serious disease to be low. Statistically significant associations were found between the socio-demographic variables identified in the sample and the various exposure characteristics. A factor analysis performed on the underlying dimensions of perception provided a final version of the instrument comprising two factors.

CONCLUSION:

Measures are needed to improve the preventive culture among workers in the construction sector and reinforce on-site preventive measures aimed at preventing or minimising the consequences of exposure to chemical agents.

Keywords

Construction workers occupational disease psychometric paradigm perceived risk

1 Introduction

We could define perceived risk as workers’ assessment of the exposure to the hazards present at their work, where they are able to think through disadvantages, advantages and possible alternatives, ultimately deciding whether to expose themselves to the risk situation. According to Slovic [1], this willing nature of this exposure is key to risk acceptance. Workers construct a subjective perception of the risk based on the extent of their knowledge about their occupation, their personal experience and their social, political, regulatory and economic context [2]. This idea was advanced by Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtenstein [3], who claimed that individuals without experience in assessing the potential consequence of a specific event trust their intuition. This intuition is influenced by inferences based on what they remember or have heard or observed. Slovic calls these intuitive judgements regarding risk “risk perceptions” [1]. The study of the social perception of risk as a cognitive process is materialised in the psychometric paradigm, a theory focused on studying the relationship between judgements of various activities or technologies and multiple qualitative attributes or characteristics of risk [4].

Construction workers, regardless of their occupation, site situation and working day, are constantly exposed to chemical [5 –11], physical, biological and social risks, be these specific to their occupation, primary risks, or posed by other works that might be carried out in their immediate environment within their radius of influence [12 –15]. Given that said exposure generally occurs deliberately and voluntarily and is an accurate reflection of the preventive culture among workers in the construction sector, understanding personal assessment of such exposure is necessary. This is because individuals’ attitudes towards risk are related to the perception and significance they attribute to this risk [16] and the study of the individual could be applied to the group, company or superior organisation [17].

The objectives of this paper include, first of all, the classification of exposure to chemical agents on-site as perceived by workers through the study of the following variables:

Assumption of exposure to chemical agents on-site

Workers’ handling of harmful or toxic substances or preparations

Knowledge of the detrimental effects of handling and/or breathing harmful or toxic substances or preparations

Appearance (diagnosed or in the process of being diagnosed) of occupational diseases resulting from exposure

Workers’ training and information regarding the measures to adopt to prevent possible occupational diseases caused by the chemical agents present in their job

On-site adoption of preventive measures to prevent occupational diseases related to chemical agent exposure

Availability of personal protection equipment against occupational diseases related to chemical agent exposure.

Secondly, the article intends to gain more knowledge on workers’ chemical risk perception, especially as pertains to the influence that fear of exposure and confidence in the prevention thereof has on said perception.

The third objective of this paper is to understand the influence of various socio-demographic variables in the construction sector (age, sex, place of origin, position, years’ experience in the position, type of contract and company size) on both on-site chemical agent exposure and workers’ overall perception of said exposure.

Through the proposed objectives this paper aims to contribute to the current theoretical framework in the area of on-site chemical agent exposure, which is fundamentally focused on analysing exposure from a clinical standpoint: the identification of exposure and the study of the pathologies related thereto. The relevance of this paper consists in including workers’ perspective on exposure, which must be taken into account when designing management systems aimed at improving on-site preventive culture through the design of training and informational programmes and procedures that consider the contents of the chemical safety sheets for the agents used on site.

2 Materials and methods

This study was carried out between November 2018 and December 2019 among workers in the Spanish construction sector who were attending various training courses on Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) in the construction sector. These courses had been organised and provided by their companies.

2.1 Data gathering tools

The tool used to gather data was an anonymous self-administered questionnaire used at the aforesaid training courses–click here to see the questionnaire–. In order to design this tool, the authors’ in-depth knowledge on the issue in the construction system was put into practice and articles published by the most renown authors on the subject and studies [18] and statistics [19 –21] available on work conditions in the construction system were consulted. Using the information gathered, a database was created consisting of 33 questions that measured different aspects associated with chemical agent exposure in the Spanish construction sector. The questionnaire was divided into five blocks of questions on socio-demographic matters, exposure to chemical agents, effects of exposure, prevention of exposure-related diseases and a last block that explored underlying dimensions of perception, such as Self-Attributed Knowledge, Supervisors’ OSH Knowledge, Fear, Personal Vulnerability, Severity of the Consequences, Preventability, Controllability, Catastrophic Potential, Immediacy of the Consequences, and Fatality. This was a version of the dimensional assessment of risk questionnaire, validated by the leading technical body on preventive matters in Spain, similar to that used for the Spanish labour context adaptation of the questionnaire Paul Slovic’s group used to apply the psychometric paradigm to the study of risk perception [22].

The authors of this research tested the questionnaire in the first training session to verify that the workers understood the questions without difficulty and did not need additional explanations thanks to its simple approach: direct multiple-choice questions regarding the variables related to chemical agent exposure and direct questions the workers must answer on a scale with high and low points related to risk perception dimensions. In subsequent sessions the questionnaire was provided and explained to workers attending the courses by the trainer of each session, who had been previously informed by the authors of the research on the contents of the questionnaire and the objectives it aimed to reach. In all cases, the trainers were high-level occupational risk prevention technicians with extensive experience in providing this type of course.

To calculate the sample size, data on the active population in the Spanish construction sector were used, which the Instituto Nacional de Estadística [23] makes available to researchers. We calculated the average worker population in the construction sector between 1995 and 2020 and applied the formula below to calculate the minimum sample size. The result was 412 workers. $n = \frac{N \cdot Z_{a}^{2} \cdot p \cdot q}{d^{2} \cdot (N - 1) + Z_{a}^{2} \cdot p \cdot q}$

Where:

N (population size) = 1608054 workers

Z_a (confidence level) = 1.96

p (expected probability) = 0.5

q (probability of failure) = 0.5

d (maximum permissible error in terms of proportion) = 0.05

In the end, the obtained sample included 508 questionnaires, 16 of which were excluded for missing answers for a large number of the variables. Thus, 492 questionnaires remained to be subsequently analysed. Two of these questionnaires were discarded because the subjects identified themselves as entrepreneurs in the Job section. The sample, therefore, ultimately comprised 490 workers.

With the information provided by the construction sector workers through the questionnaires gathered and organised, the application of the psychometric paradigm bases can help explain certain workers’ attitudes toward the risks associated with chemical agents present or used at work on a construction site [24], as they are able to define the tools necessary for determining risk in a specific and measurable manner with reliable indicators [25].

2.2 Data analysis

Once the population groups present in the sample were defined and analysed, the frequencies for each of the variables put forward were analysed. Subsequently, in order to test the possible statistical association between population groups and variables related to exposure, each of the groups and variables were made into categories and the possible statistic association was measured using Pearson’s chi-squared test and Cramer’s V coefficient.

For the study on possible statistical associations between the various population groups and the underlying dimensions of risk perception, the variables were made into categories, the homoscedasticity among groups was verified using Levene’s test and the potential statistically material differences were calculated with a Student’s t-statistic. The study was completed by virtue of an exploratory factor analysis of the underlying dimensions of risk perception, with the aim to identify unobservable variables or factors that group such variables together and explain the greatest amount of total variability.

3 Results

The sample population for the study on chemical agent exposure in the Spanish construction sector comprised construction workers belonging to the occupations reflected in Table 1, n representing the number of individuals per category, along with the corresponding percentage over the sample total.

Table 1
Jobs held by the workers in the sample (N = 490)

n (%) n (%)

Electrician 69 14.1 PVC and metallic carpentry 13 2.7

Mason 52 10.6 Demolition and wrecking 12 2.4

Locksmith 48 9.8 Mechanic 12 2.4

Technician 44 9 Refrigerating engineer 10 2

Installer/fitter 38 7.8 Climate control 8 1.6

Technical office 34 6.9 Vehicle driver 8 1.6

Welder 27 5.5 Labourer/assistant 7 1.4

Site and workshop manager 23 4.7 Crane operator 6 1.2

Maintenance 18 3.7 Operator 6 1.2

Plumbing/sewage 17 3.5 Other* 20 4.1

Painter 14 2.9 N/A 4 0.8

	n	(%)		n	(%)
Electrician	69	14.1	PVC and metallic carpentry	13	2.7
Mason	52	10.6	Demolition and wrecking	12	2.4
Locksmith	48	9.8	Mechanic	12	2.4
Technician	44	9	Refrigerating engineer	10	2
Installer/fitter	38	7.8	Climate control	8	1.6
Technical office	34	6.9	Vehicle driver	8	1.6
Welder	27	5.5	Labourer/assistant	7	1.4
Site and workshop manager	23	4.7	Crane operator	6	1.2
Maintenance	18	3.7	Operator	6	1.2
Plumbing/sewage	17	3.5	Other*	20	4.1
Painter	14	2.9	N/A	4	0.8

*“Other” groups together a heterogeneous assortment of jobs that are not sufficiently represented in the sample.

The ages of the workers in the sample ranged from 16 to 66 years old, with an average of 40.11±10.37 (KMO > 0.05). Women only represented 3.3% of this sample, which highlights the fact that the sector’s traditional masculinisation continues still today [26]. The most common country of birth in the sample was Spain (73.1%), followed by Ecuador (5.9%) and Romania (5.9%). Out of all the respondents, 60.4% had an indefinite labour contract with their companies, 18.2% had a temporary contract, 15.9% had a works contract, 1.4% were freelancers and 1% had an internship contract. The sample comprised workers with varying degrees of experience in the position, ranging from a few months to 45 years with an average of 9.29±9.33 (KMO = 0).

In terms of company type, Table 2 reflects the number of workers (n) and the percentage they represented over the sample total for each enterprise size established in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC without taking into account the economic requirements established by regulations.

Table 2

Workers by type of company as defined by Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC

Range	n	(%)
Microenterprises (1–9 employees)	106	21.6
Small enterprises (10–49 employees)	210	42.9
Medium enterprises (50–249 employees)	76	15.5
Large enterprises (250 or more employees)	67	13.7
N/A	32	6.3

3.1 Analysis of exposure to chemical agents

In the sample population, 69% stated they had been exposed to harmful or toxic powders, smoke (not including tobacco smoke), aerosols, gases or vapours (96.73% answer rate) and 44% stated they had handled harmful or toxic substances or preparations at work (96.94% answer rate). In spite of the high percentage of workers who considered themselves to be exposed to chemical agents, only 30% believed that their work was negatively affecting their health (99.18% answer rate) and 6.6% stated they had been diagnosed or were in the process of having an occupational disease recognised (98.57% answer rate). Figure 1 shows the age distribution of affected workers. We can observe that the majority of cases affected workers between 40 and 60 years old, where the most frequent diseases related to bones, hearing loss/deafness and lung diseases (Fig. 2) and the most affected occupations are Locksmith, Mason and Installer/Fitter (Fig. 3).

Fig. 1

Distribution by age range of the number of OD diagnoses made or in the process of being recognised.

Fig. 2

Number of cases by type of occupational disease present in the sample.

Fig. 3

Number of cases of occupational disease found in the sample, by occupation.

The questions pertaining to the level of understanding revealed that 79.9% of participants stated they knew the possible detrimental effects of handling and/or breathing the harmful or toxic substances or preparations present in their job (96.33% answer rate); 58% stated they had been informed at their company of the measures to be adopted to prevent potential occupational diseases (OD) caused by chemical agents (95.31% answer rate); and 56.7% stated they had been trained (95.1% answer rate).

In terms of protection against exposure, only 53% stated that the necessary preventive measures are adopted on site to prevent OD associated with chemical agent exposure (95.51% answer rate), while 65.9% stated they had the necessary personal protective equipment to prevent such exposure (95.1% answer rate). Therefore, part of the sample does not consider personal protection a preventive measure for OD.

3.2 Analysis of risk perceived by workers

Figure 4 shows the averages calculated based on the results for each of the underlying dimensions of risk perception, along with the corresponding answer rates (AR). The averages show that the respondent workers believed that both they and the OSH supervisors at their companies had an advanced understanding of the risks posed by the chemical agents present at their work. They had a lesser degree of fear of the damages from exposure and they believed the likelihood of suffering the effects thereof to be low. Likewise, they assumed that if a risk situation arose due to exposure, the severity thereof would be low. They did not consider themselves capable of preventing such situations, although they did not rule out the possibility of being capable of such prevention. Similarly, they did not feel capable of taking action to control (prevent or minimise) damages that chemical agents can cause. Also, their understanding was that the chemical agents they use on the job could not harm a large number of people at once and they could not specify when the most harmful consequences of exposure would occur.

Fig. 4

Average values based on the obtained results for the underlying dimensions of perception.

The result pertaining to the assessment of suffering a very serious disease related to chemical agent exposure revealed that most workers considered such an event to be unlikely, specifically 68.1% considered the probability to be low (less than 50, the average) compared to 19.1% who considered the probability to be high (greater than 50, the average). Demolition and Wrecking, Welder and Painter are the occupations in which individuals believe the risk of suffering a very serious disease associated with chemical agents present in their jobs is the highest, see Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Representation by occupation of the risk of suffering a very serious disease associated with chemical agents.

3.3 Incidence of socio-demographic variables represented in the sample on the perception of chemical risk

The study of the influence of the socio-demographic variables identified in the sample on risk perception of chemical agents present on site revealed a statistically significant association between occupation and deliberate exposure to chemical agents (χ² = 109.507; gl = 21; p < 0.05), the handling of harmful or toxic substances or preparations (χ² = 103.885; gl = 21; p < 0.05) and the belief that work was negatively affecting their health (χ² = 85.346; gl = 21; p < 0.05). As reflected in Fig. 6, the occupations that most believed their work was negatively affecting their health were Welder (80.8%), Demolition and Wrecking (58.3%) and Painter (57.1%). Of these occupations, Welder was the occupation with the highest rate of respiratory exposure (100%) and Painter was the occupation with the highest rate of handling harmful or toxic substances and preparations (85.7%).

Fig. 6

Representation, by occupation, of the exposure and handling of chemical agents and pessimism with regard to health status.

In relation to the OD incidence in the sample, the occupations with the most cases of having been diagnosed or in the process of having an occupational disease recognised were Welder (19.2%), Crane operator and Operator (16.7%) and Locksmith (12.8%).

The analysis of the possible association between occupation and the underlying dimensions of chemical risk perception revealed a statistically significant association among Self-Attributed Knowledge (χ² = 33.869; gl = 21; p < 0.05), Personal Vulnerability (χ² = 47.364; gl = 21; p < 0.05), Preventability (χ² = 35.771; gl = 21; p < 0.05), Catastrophic Potential (χ² = 35.274; gl = 21; p < 0.05) and Fatality (χ² = 42.959; gl = 1; p < 0.05). The occupations with the greatest Self-Attributed Knowledge figures were Maintenance and Demolition and Wrecking. The occupations that claimed the greatest Personal Vulnerability were Demolition and Wrecking, Operator and Welder. Demolition and Wrecking, Maintenance and Refrigerating Engineer reported the greatest Preventability figures. The occupations with the greatest Catastrophic Potential were Demolition and Wrecking, Refrigerating Engineer and Welder. Demolition and Wrecking, Welder and Painter were the occupations that considered their activity to entail the greatest Fatality.

We found a statistically significant association between awareness of chemical agent exposure in the workplace (χ² = 8.276; gl = 1; p < 0.05) and the workers’ place of origin. The group of workers not from Spain reflected a greater awareness that at work they breathed in harmful or toxic powders, smoke (not including tobacco smoke), aerosols, gases or vapours. Furthermore, workers who were not from Spain had significantly greater results for Personal Vulnerability, Severity and Immediacy of the Consequences.

We found a statistically significant association among awareness of exposure to chemical agents in the workplace (χ² = 12.1967; gl = 1; p < 0.05) and the belief that work was negatively affecting their health (χ² = 7.104; gl = 1; p < 0.05) and sex. A significant majority of men considered themselves to be more exposed to chemical agents and aware that same could negatively affect their health as is confirmed in epidemiological studies [18]. Furthermore, male workers had significantly greater results for Supervisors’ OSH Knowledge and Controllability.

We found a statistically significant association among the belief that work was negatively affecting their health (χ² = 4.739; gl = 1; p < 0.05), having an occupational disease diagnosed or in the recognition process (χ² = 11.758; gl = 1; p < 0.05) and having been informed of the measures to adopt to prevent potential OD caused by chemical agents (χ² = 6.742; gl = 1; p < 0.05) and experience in the position, where workers with more experience were more likely to answer these questions in the affirmative.

Likewise, we found a statistically significant association between the awareness of exposure to chemical agents on the job (χ² = 15.3177; gl = 1; p < 0.05) and company size, where workers at small enterprises were more likely to answer in the affirmative. Moreover, workers at larger enterprises showed significantly greater figures for aspects pertaining to workers’ and supervisors’ OSH knowledge.

We also found a statistically significant association between contract type and awareness of exposure to chemical agents (χ² = 11.325; gl = 1; p < 0.05) and availability of personal protective equipment needed to prevent chemical agent exposure-related OD. (χ² = 3.963; gl = 1; p < 0.05). Workers with temporary contracts were more likely to report breathing harmful or toxic dust, smoke (not including tobacco smoke), aerosols, gases or vapours at the workplace and workers with an indefinite contract were more likely to report having the personal protective equipment needed to prevent exposure-related OD at their disposal.

The factor analysis performed on the underlying dimensions of perception of chemical risk, as reflected in Table 3, provided a final version of the instrument comprising two factors: Fatalism and Familiarity. The Fatalism factor includes the dimensions related to the potential damages resulting from exposure (Fear, Personal Vulnerability, Severity of the Consequences and Catastrophic Potential) while the Familiarity factor includes the dimensions related to the skills and expertise necessary to deal with the risk (Self-Attributed Knowledge, Supervisors’ OSH Knowledge, Preventability and Controllability). The analysis of the relationship of each of the obtained factors with the variable that estimates overall perception of the level of risk: Fatality shows a moderate correlation among between Fatalism and Fatality (r = 0.621; p = 0) and a weaker correlation with Familiarity (r = 0.166; p = 0.001).

Table 3

Results of the exploratory factor analysis of the underlying dimensions of perception of chemical risk exposure

	Fatalism	Familiarity
Average	3.11	4.21
Standard deviation	1.54	1.39
% Explained variance	37.18	63.34
Cronbach’s alpha	0.84	0.70
Underlying dimension	Factor load*
Personal vulnerability	0.88
Severity of the consequences	0.85
Fear	0.77
Catastrophic potential	0.74
Self-attributed knowledge		0.84
Supervisors’ OSH knowledge		0.82
Controllability		0.62
Preventability		0.54

*Only factor loads greater than 0.5 are reflected.

4 Discussion

The results revealed that the percentage of participants that reported handling harmful or toxic substances or preparations at work is similar to that recorded in the most recent national survey on labour conditions in Spain [27]. This is in spite of the fact that the percentage of respondents reporting exposure was greater, especially in the case of men of non-Spanish origin hired at small enterprises with a temporary contract.

Despite the high levels of exposure reported and in spite of the fact that approximately 80% of respondents reported understanding the potential detrimental effects, the majority (58.2%) believed that their health was not being affected even though, according to applicable law [28], ruling out the possibility that exposure was negatively affecting their health would require measuring the concentrations of chemical agents in the air and comparing these concentrations with the relevant maximum environmental figures. At this point it is worth mentioning that none of the Operators in the sample stated they handled chemical agents, disregarding the fact that supplying fuel to their vehicles entails an obvious exposure to a cancerous agent. Therefore, the respondents misguidedly underestimated the level of risk, confirming that workers who are not exposed to hazards that can cause them sudden harm tend to perceive less risk even when they could be exposed to diseases or to harmful products [17]. In essence, the sample was found to reflect what has been called “unrealistic optimism” [29], reinforcing the theory that dangerous activities whose personal risks are underestimated tend to be seen as under personal control [2]. This unrealistic optimism, in addition to the fact that part of the sample incorrectly identified the preventive measures adopted on site (39.3% of the sample claimed preventive measures needed to prevent chemical agent related OD were not adopted or they were unaware thereof, although only 27.1% stated they did not have or did not know if they had at their disposal the necessary personal protective equipment) and the lack of workers’ involvement in their exposure (Preventability and Controllability averages near the middle value, i.e. they did not accept or rule out the importance of their involvement in risk control and the possible consequences thereof in the event of exposure) are a clear symptom of a lack of preventive culture among workers in the Spanish construction sector, a conclusion that the literature has reached in the past [30]. We must therefore question the Self-Attributed Knowledge value we received, given that, despite the fact that respondents stated they had been trained and informed on the measures to adopt to prevent potential OD caused by chemical agents, the actual sensitivity to the risk was insufficient, in line with the previous findings in the literature [31]. What also stood out was the lack of knowledge about the intrinsic properties of the substances used, the damage caused by exposure and the lack of recognition of the harm to health, in line with what other authors define as “underreporting” of OD in Spain [10 , 32–36], which comprises a true obstacle to the development of the necessary strategies and preventive actions as having information is necessary to assess, prioritise, plan and act [37].

The factor analysis performed on the underlying dimensions of chemical risk perception, along with the analysis of the relationship of each of the factors discussed with the variable estimating overall perception of the risk level, revealed that fear of exposure and the consequences thereof had a greater impact on the overall perception of risk than did confidence in prevention. The immediacy of the consequences was not relevant to the overall perception level. The influence of this dimension could be limited due to the fact that the causal relationship is complicated by the long latent period between the initial exposure to the risk and the identifiable symptoms of the occupational disease [32, 33].

5 Conclusion

The results of this paper revealed, in line with the latest survey on work conditions carried out in Spain on this matter, that most workers in the Spanish construction sector know the chemical agents present in their activity and the detrimental effects of exposure, they have been trained and informed by their companies on the measures to be adopted to prevent potential OD from the use thereof and have the personal protective equipment needed to avoid such OD. On the negative side, we found a lack of preventive culture. Only one-third of workers in the sector believed their work was negatively affecting their health and approximately half believed that the preventive measures needed to prevent OD had been adopted.

We found that socio-demographic variables like age, place of origin, sex, experience, company size and contract type influence how workers relate to and understand chemical agent exposure. This conclusion led us to propose the importance of exploring the potential influence of the socio-cultural context on risk perception, applying, to that end, a social and anthropological approach to the study of the perception of OD-causing agents that are typical in this sector. Consequently, repeating this research in other countries would be useful to be able to compare the influence of the socio-cultural context on workers’ preventive culture, and by extension, on the perception of chemical risk.

It is also worth noting that our results support the possible application of the psychometric paradigm to the study of the perception of risk factors that cause OD in the construction sector. Future research should include gathering evidence of the reproducibility thereof by applying said paradigm to other agents that cause OD in the construction sector.

Lastly, we must call attention to how unproductive current management systems are in terms of generating preventive culture that can effectively combat damage to health caused by chemical agent exposure. Companies must make real efforts to perform an initial assessment of on-site chemical agent exposure that includes the content of the chemical safety sheets for the products used, the implementation of effective preventive measures including work procedures, the reinforcement of inquiry channels, workers’ involvement and the establishment of an on-going training and information system that is consistent with the reality of on-site activity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This paper would not have been possible without the collaboration of our colleagues at the external risk prevention service provider, Cualtis.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Funding

None to report.

References

Slovic

. Perception of Risk. Science. 1987;236:280–85.

Giulio

GMD

, Vasconcellos

MDP

, Günther

WMR

, Ribeiro

, Assunção

JVD

. Risk perception: a field of interest for the interface between environment, health, and sustainability. Saúde e Sociedade. 2015;24:1217–31.

Slovic

, Fischhoff

, Lichtenstein

. Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. Societal Risk Assessment. (1980);181–216.

Rodríguez

ACP

. Percepción social del riesgo: dimensiones de evaluación y predicción. [Social Perception of Risk: Dimensions of Evaluation and Prediction]. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. (1994). Spanish.

Ringen

, Seegal

, England

. Safety and health in the construction industry. Annual Review of Public Health. 1995;16(1):165–88.

Sauni

, Oksa

, Huikko

, Roto

, Uitti

. Increased risk of asthma among Finnish construction workers. Occupational Medicine. 2003;53(8):527–31.

Uter

, Rühl

, Pfahlberg

, Geier

, Schnuch

, Gefeller

. Contact allergy in construction workers: results of a multifactorialanalysis. Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 2004;48(1):21–7.

Siemiatycki

, et al. Listing occupational carcinogens. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2004;112(15):1447–59.

Rousseau

, Straif

, Siemiatycki

. IARC carcinogen update. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2005;113(9):A580–1.

10.

García-Gómez

, Menéndez-Navarro

, López

. Asbestos-related occupational cancers compensated under the Spanish National Insurance System, 1978–2011. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2015;21(1):31–9.

11.

Marks Jr

, Anderson

, DeLeo

. Contact & occupational dermatology. JP Medical Ltd. (2016).

12.

Carcaño

RGS

. Riesgos en la salud de los trabajadores de laconstrucción. [Construction Workers’ Health Risk]. Ingeniería. 2006;10(2):67–74. Spanish.

13.

Verma

, Kurtz

, Sahai

, Finkelstein

. Current chemical exposures among Ontario construction workers. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2003;18(12):1031–47.

14.

Wood

. Center for the Polyurethanes Industry summary of unpublished industrial hygiene studies related to the evaluation of emissions of spray polyurethane foam insulation. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2017;14(9):681–93.

15.

Torén

, Bergdahl

, Nilsson

, Järvholm

. Occupational exposure to particulate air pollution and mortality due to ischaemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2007;64(8):515–9.

16.

Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT) [National Institute for Safety and Hygiene in the Work Place]. NTP 405: Factor humano y siniestralidad: aspectos sociales [Technical Prevention Memo 405: Human Factor and Accident Rates Social Aspects] (1996). Available from: https://cso.go.cr/legislacion/notas_tecnicas_preventivas_insht/NTP%20405%20-%20Factor%20humano%20y%20siniestralidad%20aspectos%20social.pdf Spanish.

17.

Garzón

. Riesgo percibido en la construcción: Un estudio cross cultural. [Risk Perceived In Construction: a Cross-Cultural Study]. Universidad de Sevilla. (2014). Spanish.

18.

Ministerio de Sanidad Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. [Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality] Estudio epidemiológico de las enfermedades profesionales en España (1990–2014). [Epidemiological Investigation of Occupational Diseases in Spain (1990–2014)] Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. (2017). Available from: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/ciudadanos/saludAmbLaboral/docs/EEPPEspana.pdf. Spanish.

19.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística. [Statistics National Institute]. Ocupados por sexo y rama de actividad [Employed by sex and branch of activity]. 1976–2000. Available from: https://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Tabla.htm?t=4128&L=0. Consultado 4/10/21. Spanish.

20.

Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía [Social Ministry of Labor and Social Economy]. Estadística de Accidentes de Trabajo [Work Accident Statistics]. 1976–2000. Available from: https://www.mites.gob.es/estadisticas/eat/welcome.htm. Consultado 31/03/2021 Spanish.

21.

Ministerio de la Presidencia, Relaciones con las Cortes y Memoria Democrática [Ministry of the Presidency, Relations with the Courts and Democratic Memory]. Observatorio de enfermedades profesionales (CEPROSS) y de enfermedades causadas o agravadas por el trabajo (PANOTRATSS) [Occupational diseases Observatory and diseases caused or aggravated by work]. Informes Anuales [Annual Reports] 2010–2019 Spanish.

22.

Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT) [National Institute for Safety and Hygiene in the Work Place]. Spanish. NTP 578: Riesgo percibido: un procedimiento de evaluación [Technical Prevention Memo 578: The Perception Of Risk: An Evaluation Procedure] 2001. Available from: https://www.insst.es/documents/94886/327064/ntp_578.pdf/545878eb-7e16-43fa-a4b6-b3dc18be7a14. Spanish.

23.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística [Statistics National Institute]. Encuesta de Población Activa (EPA). Serie histórica [Active Population Survey (EPA). Historical series]. Available from: http://www.ine.es/prensa/epa_tabla.htm Spanish.

24.

Forcael

, Risso

, Álvarez

, Gómez

, Orozco

. Evaluation of the occupational hazard perception of building construction workers from a psychometric paradigm and considering sociodemographic variables. Revista de la Construcción. Journal of Construction. 2018;17(3):436–56.

25.

Calzaretta

, Valenzuela

, Sepúlveda

. El Estudio de la Percepción del Riesgo y Salud Ocupacional: Una Mirada desde los Paradigmas de Riesgo. [The Study of the Perception of Risk and Occupational Health: a View from the Paradigms]. Ciencia & Trabajo. 2010;35:243–50. Spanish.

26.

Infante

, Román

, Traverso

. El sector español de la construcción bajo la perspectiva de género. Análisis de las condiciones laborales. [The Spanish Construction Sector Under Gender Perspective. Analysis of Working Conditions.] Revista de la Construcción. 2012;11(1):32–43. Spanish.

27.

Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT). (2012). [National Institute for Safety and Hygiene in the Work Place]. VII Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo [National Survey on Labour Conditions VII]; 2012 [cited 2021 Jan 10]. Available from: https://www.insst.es/documentacion/catalogo-de-publicaciones/vii-encuesta-nacional-de-condiciones-de-trabajo-2011. Spanish.

28.

Real Decreto 374/2001, de 6 de abril sobre la protección de la salud y seguridad de los trabajadores contra los riesgos relacionados con los agentes químicos durante el trabajo. [Royal Decree 374/2001, of 6 April, on the protection of workers’ health and safety against risks relating to chemical agents at work.] (BOE [Official State Gazette], no. 104 01/05/2001). Spanish.

29.

Weinstein

. Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980;39(5):806–820.

30.

Vázquez

. Los accidentes laborales en las obras de construcción, ¿falta de inversión económica o ausencia de cultura preventiva? [Occupational Accidents on Construction Sites: a Lack of Economic Investment or of Preventive Culture?] Seguretat. Collegi D’Aparelladors, Arquitectes Tècnics i Enginyers D’Edificació de Tarragona. 2016;76:28–30. Spanish.

31.

Rubio

AAC

, Valdés

JMR

, Lareo

, Merino

, Cencillo

. Riesgo químico laboral: elementos para un diagnóstico en España. [Occupational Chemical risk: Elements for Diagnosis in Spain]. Revista española de salud publica, 2005;79(2):283–295. Spanish.

32.

Driscoll

, Takala

, Steenland

, Corvalan

, Fingerhut

. Review of estimates of the global burden of injury and illness due to occupational exposures. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2005;48(6):491–502.

33.

Rushton

, Hutchings

, Brown

. The burden of cancer at work: estimation as the first step to prevention. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2008;65(12):789–800.

34.

Crevillén

. La enfermedad profesional en España. [Occupational Disease in Spain]. Ciencia forense. 2014;11:17–40. Spanish.

35.

García

AMG

, Merino

. Estimación de la mortalidad y morbilidad por enfermedades laborales en España. [Estimation of Morbidity and Mortality Through Occupational Diseases in Spain]. Arch Prev Riesgos Labor. 2004;7(1. [Edición impresa]. pp. 3–8. Spanish.

36.

Kogevinas

, Castaño-Vinyals

, Rodríguez Suárez

, Tardón

, Serra

. Estimación de la incidencia de la mortalidad por cáncer laboral en España, 2002. [Estimation of Occupational Cancer Mortality Incidence in Spain, 2002]. Arch Prev Riesgos Labor. 2008;11(4):180–7. Spanish.

37.

García

AMG

, Galarzo

MCG

. La matriz empleo-exposición española: MatEmESp. [The Spanish Job-Exposure Matrix]. Archivos de prevención de riesgos laborales. 2012;15(3):121–3. Spanish.