ArticleInternational journal of industrial ergonomics2019
Operators' views of mobile equipment ingress and egress safety.
Article in International journal of industrial ergonomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A taxonomy of surface mining slip, trip, and fall hazards as a guide to research and practice.Applied ergonomics · 2021Article
- Lessons learned from Ohio workers' compensation claims to mitigate hazards in the landscaping services industry.American journal of industrial medicine · 2021Article
- Effects of Metatarsal Work Boots on Gait During Level and Inclined Walking.Journal of applied biomechanics · 2020Article
- Investigation of Machine-Mounted Area Lighting to Reduce Risk of Injury from Slips-Trips-Falls for Operators of Mobile Surface Mining Equipment.Mining, metallurgy & exploration · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A large proportion of non-fatal slips, trips, and falls (STFs) at surface mining facilities are associated with mobile equipment. Ingress and egress from mobile equipment can pose a fall risk to mobile equipment operators. The objective of this study was to determine mobile equipment operators' views of STF risks from mobile equipment, and to ascertain what factors, tasks, and conditions they perceive as contributing to these risks. A thematic analysis of 23 individual interviews and 2 group interviews was conducted, with 10 overarching themes identified from the transcripts. Mobile equipment operators indicated that being unable to see their feet or the ladder rungs during descent and the presence of contaminants on the ladders caused by normal operation make egress more dangerous than ingress. The flexible rails and high heights of the lower rungs identified over 40 years ago as issues for mobile equipment operators still pose a perceived STF risk. Further, the requirements of routine maintenance tasks such as oil and filter changes, greasing, and cleaning windows pose fall risks due to inadequate access and the need to carry supplies up and down equipment ladders. In addition to the mobile equipment, hazardous ground conditions and insufficient lighting were found to be key issues around the mobile equipment and in parking areas. The findings of this work indicate that mobile equipment operators feel at risk for STFs due to the design and condition of their equipment, and would like to see ladders replaced with safer stairways as the primary ingress/egress system.
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.