Functional Impairment and Quality of Life in Retired Workers of the Construction Trades

ABSTRACT

This cross-sectional study compared the quality of life and physical health of retirees from the construction industry to that of retirees from more sedentary occupations. The feasibility of cooperation from the unions and their retirees for a larger health study was also examined. The mailed health survey assessed current physical functioning, role limitations as a result of poor health, pain, and past and current problems with falls and injuries. The survey was completed by 77 construction and 174 nonconstruction retirees. Results were striking with 42.1% of the construction retirees, compared to 12.9% of the male and 14.3% of female nonconstruction retirees reporting significantly poorer health. A multiple regression analysis comparing male construction to male nonconstruction retirees showed male construction retirees were almost five times more likely to report their health as being fair or poor. Further, significantly more male construction, versus male nonconstruction retirees, reported that their physical health reduced the time they were able to spend on daily activities. Almost one in five (19.4%) construction retirees described themselves as having severe to very severe pain versus 3.1% of the male nonconstruction retirees. Construction retirees reported significantly greater problems with their vision, neck and shoulders, hands and wrists, hips, knees, and ankle/feet joints. These findings suggest that with our rapidly aging population, there will be enormous physical, emotional, and financial costs related to construction work and that prevention and intervention measures are needed for current employees in this profession.

This study was supported by a Subcontract to NIOSH grant (Purdue University) “Pilot study of retired construction workers' rate of falls/near falls and quality of life.” This study was approved by the University of Cincinnati's Institutional Review Board for human research. The authors thank the reviewers and the journal editor for their valuable comments.

Notes

*p ≤ .01.

**p ≤ .05.

*p ≤ .05.

*p ≤ .01.

**p ≤ .05.

*p ≤ .01.

**p ≤ .05.

†Response could range from none, very mild, mild, moderate, severe, very severe.

‡Binomial regression model.