Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26067774›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

An Evaluation of the Effects of Human Factors and Ergonomics on Health Care and Patient Safety Practices: A Systematic Review.

Xuanyue Mao, Pengli Jia, Longhao Zhang, Pujing Zhao, Ying Chen, Mingming Zhang

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. World Trends in Dental Ergonomics Research: A Bibliometric Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Translational simulation: from description to action.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Measuring Workload Demand of Informatics Systems with the Clinical Case Demand Index.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    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

6 authors.

Xuanyue MaoChinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R. China.
Pengli JiaChinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R. China.
Longhao ZhangChinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R. China.
Pujing ZhaoChinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R. China.
Ying ChenSchool of Foreign Languages, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Mingming ZhangChinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrom the viewpoint of human factors and ergonomics (HFE), errors often occur because of the mismatch between the system, technique and characteristics of the human body. HFE is a scientific discipline concerned with understanding interactions between human behavior, system design and safety.

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of HFE interventions in improving health care workers' outcomes and patient safety and to assess the quality of the available evidence.

methodsWe searched databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and the CBM (Chinese BioMedical Literature Database), for articles published from 1996 to Mar.2015. The quality assessment tool was based on the risk of bias criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group. The interventions of the included studies were categorized into four relevant domains, as defined by the International Ergonomics Association.

resultsFor this descriptive study, we identified 8, 949 studies based on our initial search. Finally, 28 studies with 3,227 participants were included. Among the 28 included studies, 20 studies were controlled studies, two of which were randomized controlled trials. The other eight studies were before/after surveys, without controls. Most of the studies were of moderate or low quality. Five broad categories of outcomes were identified in this study: 1) medical errors or patient safety, 2) health care workers' quality of working life (e.g. reduced fatigue, discomfort, workload, pain and injury), 3) user performance (e.g., efficiency or accuracy), 4) health care workers' attitudes towards the interventions(e.g., satisfaction and preference), and 5) economic evaluations.

conclusionThe results showed that the interventions positively affected the outcomes of health care workers. Few studies considered the financial merits of these interventions. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality. This review highlights the need for scientific and standardized guidelines regarding how HFE should be implemented in health care.

Indexed as

ErgonomicsPatient SafetyQuality of Health CareHumans

Identifiers

PMID26067774
PMCPMC4466322

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.