ArticleOccupational health science2018
Applying the Precaution Adoption Process Model to the Acceptance of Mine Safety and Health Technologies.
Article in Occupational health science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of prescribed burn health risk communication on community and individual smoke-protective decision making using protective action theories.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Wearable device-based interventions in heat-exposed outdoor workers - a scoping review and an explanatory intervention model.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Industrial Robotics and the Future of Work.American journal of industrial medicine · 2025Review
- Using Core Elements of Health and Safety Management Systems to Support Worker Well-Being during Technology Integration.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Using self-determination theory to identify organizational interventions to support coal mineworkers' dust-reducing practices.International journal of mining science and technology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Mineworkers are continually introduced to protective technologies on the job. Yet, their perceptions toward the technologies are often not addressed until they are actively trying to use them, which may halt safe technology adoption and associated work practices. This study explored management and worker perspectives toward three technologies to forecast adoption and behavioral intention on the job. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with 21 mineworkers and 19 mine managers to determine the adoption process stage algorithm for workers and managers, including perceived barriers to using new safety and health technologies. Differences between workers and managers were revealed in terms of readiness, perceptions, and initial trust in using technologies. Workers, whether they had or had not used a particular technology, still had negative perceptions toward its use in the initial introduction and integration at their mine site, indicating a lengthy time period needed for full adoption. The key finding from these results is that a carefully considered and extended introduction of technology for workers in Stage 3 (undecided to act) is most important to promote progression to Stage 5 (decided to act) and to avoid Stage 4 (decided not to act). In response, organizational management may need to account for workers' particular stage algorithm, using the Precaution Adoption Process Model, to understand how to tailor messages about protective technologies, administer skill-based trainings and interventions that raise awareness and knowledge, and ultimately encourage safe adoption of associated work practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29862314PMC5978749What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.