ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2019
Testing the associations between leading and lagging indicators in a contractor safety pre-qualification database.
Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability of forearm fractures: a systematic analysis based on the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Discrepancies Between Implementation and Perceived Effectiveness of Leading Safety Indicators in the US Dairy Product Manufacturing Industry.Safety and health at work · 2022Article
- Associations between a safety prequalification survey and worker safety experiences on commercial construction sites.American journal of industrial medicine · 2020Article
- An Integrative Total Worker Health Framework for Keeping Workers Safe and Healthy During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Human factors · 2020Article
- Designing a Participatory Total Worker HealthInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSafety prequalification assessing contractors' safety management systems and safety programs lack validation in predicting construction worker injuries.
methodsSafety assessments of leading indicators from 2198 construction contractors, including Safety Management Systems (SMS), Safety Programs (e.g., falls, hearing protection), and Special Elements (drug testing, return to work) scales as well as the history of citations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) were compared to contractors' lagging indicators of recordable injury case rates (RC) and rates of injuries involving days away, restricted, or transferred (DART).
resultsIncreased SMS scores were related to lower injury rates. Each one-point increase in SMS values was associated with 34% reduced odds of a recordable case rate greater than zero (Odds ratio (OR): 0.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): (0.57, 0.79)), and a 9% reduced recordable case rate, if one occurs (Risk Ratio (RR): 0.91, 95% CI: (0.88, 0.94)). A one-point increase in SMS was associated with 28% reduced odds of a DART (OR = 0.72, 95%CI (0.56, 0.91)), and 9% reduced DART rate, if one occurs (RR = 0.91, 95%CI (0.87, 0.95)). Safety programs did not show consistent associations with injury outcomes. Having additional Special Elements related to drug and alcohol programs was associated with lower injury rates while the Special Element related to return to work showed no consistent associations with injury. Having more OSHA Citations was associated with lower injury rates for companies with injuries.
conclusionsThese results support pre-qualification methods based on SMS and suggest the need for safety management systems in contractors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.