Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25909756›Full record

ArticleErgonomics2015

Sociotechnical attributes of safe and unsafe work systems.

Brian M Kleiner, Lawrence J Hettinger, David M DeJoy, Yuang-Hsiang Huang, Peter E D Love

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ergonomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Brian M Kleinera Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University , Perry Street, Blacksburg , VA 24061 , USA.
Lawrence J Hettinger
David M DeJoy
Yuang-Hsiang Huang
Peter E D Love

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theoretical and practical approaches to safety based on sociotechnical systems principles place heavy emphasis on the intersections between social-organisational and technical-work process factors. Within this perspective, work system design emphasises factors such as the joint optimisation of social and technical processes, a focus on reliable human-system performance and safety metrics as design and analysis criteria, the maintenance of a realistic and consistent set of safety objectives and policies, and regular access to the expertise and input of workers. We discuss three current approaches to the analysis and design of complex sociotechnical systems: human-systems integration, macroergonomics and safety climate. Each approach emphasises key sociotechnical systems themes, and each prescribes a more holistic perspective on work systems than do traditional theories and methods. We contrast these perspectives with historical precedents such as system safety and traditional human factors and ergonomics, and describe potential future directions for their application in research and practice. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: The identification of factors that can reliably distinguish between safe and unsafe work systems is an important concern for ergonomists and other safety professionals. This paper presents a variety of sociotechnical systems perspectives on intersections between social--organisational and technology--work process factors as they impact work system analysis, design and operation.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthSafetySystems AnalysisErgonomicsHumansModels, OrganizationalOrganizational CultureWorkplacehuman–systems integrationmacroergonomicsoccupational safetysafety climatesociotechnical systems

Identifiers

PMID25909756
PMCPMC4566878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.