Factors associated with use of slip-resistant shoes in US limited-service restaurant workers
- Santosh K Verma1,2,
- Theodore K Courtney1,3,
- Helen L Corns1,
- Yueng-Hsiang Huang4,
- David A Lombardi1,3,
- Wen-Ruey Chang5,
- Melanye J Brennan1,
- Melissa J Perry3,6
- 1Center for Injury Epidemiology, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA
- 2Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
- 3Environmental and Occupational Medicine and Epidemiology Program, Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- 4Center for Behavioral Sciences, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA
- 5Center for Physical Ergonomics, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA
- 6Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
- Correspondence to Santosh K Verma, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MA 01748, USA; santosh.verma{at}libertymutual.com
- Accepted 12 July 2011
- Published Online First 23 August 2011
Abstract
Objectives Slips and falls are a leading cause of injury at work. Several studies have indicated that slip-resistant shoes can reduce the risk of occupational slips and falls. Few studies, however, have examined the determinants of slip-resistant shoe use. This study examined the individual and workplace factors associated with slip-resistant shoe use.
Methods 475 workers from 36 limited-service restaurants in the USA participated in a study of workplace slipping. Demographic and job characteristic information about each participant was collected. Restaurant managers provided information on whether slip-resistant shoes were provided and paid for by the employer and whether any guidance was given regarding slip-resistant shoe use when they were not provided. Kitchen floor coefficient of friction was measured. Slip-resistant status of the shoes was determined by noting the presence of a ‘slip-resistant’ marking on the sole. Poisson regression with robust SE was used to calculate prevalence ratios.
Results 320 participants wore slip-resistant shoes (67%). In the multivariate analysis, the prevalence of slip-resistant shoe use was lowest in 15–19-year age group. Women were more likely to wear slip-resistant shoes (prevalence ratio 1.18, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31). The prevalence of slip-resistant shoe use was lower when no guidance regarding slip-resistant shoes was given as compared to when they were provided by the employer (prevalence ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.79). Education level, job tenure and the mean coefficient of friction had no significant effects on the use of slip-resistant shoes.
Conclusion Provision of slip-resistant shoes was the strongest predictor of their use. Given their effectiveness and low cost, employers should consider providing slip-resistant shoes at work.
- Slips
- falls
- injury
- restaurants
- slip-resistant shoes
- personal protective equipment
- safety
- gender
- database
- biostatistics
- fracture
- methods
- surveillance
- international
- occupational
Footnotes
-
Funding Funded by the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety.
-
Competing interests None.
-
Ethics approval Institutional Review Board of the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety and the Office of Human Research Administration at the Harvard School of Public Health.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.








