Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 99, Issue 2, pp 121–124 | Cite as

Educational Status and Work Injury Among Young People

Refining the Targeting of Prevention Resources
  • F. Curtis BreslinEmail author



To examine the risk of work injuries among young workers out of school compared to those working while still in school.


The 12,506 fifteen to twenty-four year old workers were part of a national survey that used a multi-staged, stratified sampling procedure. Respondents were divided into four groups based on current school activity (i.e., out of school vs. in school) and educational level (i.e., not having completed high school vs. completed high school). A multivariate logistic regression was conducted using a weighted bootstrap method for variance estimation on occurrence of a work injury that was medically attended.


Those young workers out of school and not having completed high school (8.2 per 1 00 full-time equivalents [FTEs]) and those out of school with a high school degree (5.1 per 100 FTEs) had higher unadjusted rates of work injuries compared to those workers in school not having completed high school (3.1 per 100 FTEs) or those in school with a high school degree (2.7 per 100 FTEs). These differences persisted in a multivariate regression with demographic and work-related covariates included. In addition, young people out of school reported a different work environment as evidenced by decreased social support at work.


The elevated injury risk of young workers out of school suggests that school-based work safety education programs need to be supplemented with other prevention strategies that improve the fit between these young workers’ experience and capabilities and the work environment.

Key words

Adolescent education occupational group wounds and injuries 



Examiner le risque d’accidents du travail chez les jeunes travailleurs ne fréquentant plus ‘école comparativement à ceux qui travaillent pendant leurs études.


Les 12 506 travailleurs de15à24ans choisis pour cette étude faisaient partie d’une enquête nationale utilisant une méthode d’échantillonnage stratifié à plusieurs degrés. Les répondants ont été divisés en quatre groupes selon leur situation scolaire actuelle (ne fréquentant plus l’école ou allant à l’école) et leur niveau d’instruction (études secondaires terminées ou non). Nous avons mené une analyse de régression logistique multivariée selon une méthode d’autogénération mutuelle pondérée pour obtenir la variance estimée de la fréquence des accidents du travail ayant nécessité des soins médicaux.


Les jeunes travailleurs ne fréquentant plus l’école et n’ayant pas terminé leurs études secondaires (8,2 p. 1 00 équivalents temps pleins [ETP]) et ceux ne fréquentant plus l’école, mais ayant un diplôme d’études secondaires (5,1 p. 1 00 ETP) présentaient des taux accidents du travai plus élevés (données avant ajustement) que les travailleurs qui allaient encore à l’école et n’avaient pas terminé leurs études secondaires (3,1 p. 1 00 ETP) ou que les diplômés du secondaire qui faisaient des études supérieures (2,7 p. 1 00 ETP). Ces écarts ont persisté avec une analyse de régression multivariée incluant des covariables démographiques et liées au travail. De plus, les jeunes ne fréquentant plus l’école évoluaient dans un milieu de travail différent du fait qu’ils recevaient moins de soutien social au travail.


Le risque de blessures accru chez les jeunes travailleurs ne fréquentant plus l’école semble indiquer que les programmes de sensibilisation à la sécurité enseignés dans les écoles gagneraient à être complétés par d’autres stratégies de prévention visant à réduire les écarts entre l’expérience et les capacités de ces jeunes travailleurs et la réalité de leur milieu de travail.

Mots clés

adolescent enseignement groupe professionnel plaies et blessures 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Usalcas J. Youth and the labour market. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Statistics Canada. Youths and the labour market. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Statistics Canada. Canadian Labour Force Survey, public use files. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Millar WJ. Accidents in Canada, 1988 and 1993. Health Rep 1995;7(2):7–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conn J, Annest J, Gilchrist J. Sports and recreation related injury episodes in the US population, 1997–99. Inj Prev 2003;9(2):117–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breslin FC, Smith P, Mustard CA, Zhao S. Young people and work injuries: An examination of jurisdictional variation within Canada. Inj Prev 2006;12:105–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chapeskie K, Breslin FC. Securing a Safe and Healthy Future. Toronto, ON: Institute for Work & Health, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Research Council. Protecting Youth at Work: Health, Safety, and Development of Working Children and Adolescents in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Runyan CW, Zakocs RC. Epidemiology and prevention of injuries among adolescent workers in the United States. Annu Rev Public Health 2000;21:247–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Breslin FC, Koehoorn M, Smith P, Manno M. Age-related differences in work injuries and permanent impairment: A comparison of workers’ compensation claims among adolescents, young adults, and adults. Occup Environ Med 2003;60(9):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parker DL, Carl WR, French LR, Martin FB. Characteristics of adolescent work injuries reported to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. Am J Public Health 1994;84(4):606–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parker DL, Carl WR, French LR, Martin FB. Nature and incidence of self-reported adolescent work injury in Minnesota. Am J Ind Med 1994;26:529–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breslin FC, Tompa E, Zhao R, Amick B, Pole J, Smith P, et al. Work disability absence among young workers with respect to earnings losses in the following year. Scand J Work Environ Health 2007;33(3):192–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boychuk S. 2005/06: National Government/WCB Young Worker Health and Safety Initiatives/Programs Inventory. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Labour, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reed D, Kidd P, Westneat S, Rayens M. Agricultural disability awareness and risk education (AgDARE) for high school students. Inj Prev 2001;7:i59–i63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bowlby G. Provincial drop-out rates–Trends and consequences. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. 2006. Report No. 81-004-XIE.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shaienks D, Eisl-Culkin J, Bussière P. Follow-up on education and labour market pathways of young Canadians aged 18 to 20–Results from YITS Cycle 3. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics Division, 2006. Report No. 81-595-MIE - No. 045.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canadian Policy Research Networks. From education to work: A difficult transition for young adults with low levels of education. Paris, France: OECD Publications, 2005. ISBN 92-64-00918-3.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 1.1 (2000–2001), Public use documentation. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Putting Data to Work: Occupational Health Indicators from Thirteen Pilot States for 2000. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control, 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Costa G. Shift work and occupational medicine: An overview. Occup Med (Lond) 2003;53(2):83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karasek R. Job Content Questionnaire and User’s Guide. [1.1]. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, 1985.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shannon HS, Ibrahim SA, Robson LS, Zarinpoush F. Changes in job stressors in the Canadian working population. Can J Public Health 2006;97(3):225–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yeo D, Mantel H, Liu T. Bootstrap Variance Estimation for the National Population Health Survey, 1999 Proceedings of the Survey, Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association. 1999;778–83.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Breslin FC, Day D, Tompa E, Irvin E, Bhattacharyya S, Clarke J, et al. Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Work Injury Among Youth. Toronto, ON: Institute for Work & Health, 2005.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barling J, Loughlin C, Kelloway EK. Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. J Appl Psychol 2002;87(3):488–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sorock G, Lombardi D, Hauser R, Eisen E, Herrick R, Mittleman M. A case-crossover study of transient risk factors for occupational acute hand injury. Occup Environ Med 2004;61:301–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith PM, Mustard CA. How many employees receive safety training during their first year of a new job? Inj Prev 2007;13(1):37–4l.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lonero L, Clinton K, Wilde G, Roach K, McKnight J, McKnight S, et al. The Roles of Legislation, Education, and Reinforcement in Changing Road User Behaviour. Toronto, ON: Safety Research Office, Safety Policy Branch, Ministry of Transportation, 1994. Report No. SRO-94-102.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Work & HealthTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations