Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33334498›Full record

ArticleJournal of safety research2020

Two discrete choice experiments on laboratory safety decisions and practices.

Oliver Wirth, Anne M Foreman, Jonathan E Friedel, Michael E Andrew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of safety research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Biosafety Level 2 Training Programs at Institutions of Higher Learning in the United States.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Oliver WirthBioanalytics Branch (BB), Health Effects Laboratory Division (HELD), National Institute for Occupational Safety Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Morgantown, WV 26508, United States. Electronic address: oaw5@cdc.gov.
Anne M ForemanBioanalytics Branch (BB), Health Effects Laboratory Division (HELD), National Institute for Occupational Safety Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Morgantown, WV 26508, United States.
Jonathan E FriedelBioanalytics Branch (BB), Health Effects Laboratory Division (HELD), National Institute for Occupational Safety Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Morgantown, WV 26508, United States.
Michael E AndrewBioanalytics Branch (BB), Health Effects Laboratory Division (HELD), National Institute for Occupational Safety Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Morgantown, WV 26508, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe path toward enhancing laboratory safety requires a thorough understanding of the factors that influence the safety-related decision making of laboratory personnel.

methodWe developed and administered a web-based survey to assess safety-related decision making of laboratory personnel of a government research organization. The survey included two brief discrete choice experiments (DCEs) that allowed for quantitative analysis of specific factors that potentially influence safety-related decisions and practices associated with two different hypothetical laboratory safety scenarios. One scenario related to reporting a laboratory spill, and the other scenario involved changing protective gloves between laboratory rooms. The survey also included several brief self-report measures of attitude, perception, and behavior related to safety practices.

resultsRisk perception was the most influential factor in safety-related decision making in both scenarios. Potential negative consequences and effort associated with reporting an incident and the likelihood an incident was detected by others also affected reporting likelihood. Wearing gloves was also affected somewhat by perceived exposure risk, but not by other social or work-related factors included in the scenarios.

conclusionsThe study demonstrated the promise of DCEs in quantifying the relative impact of several factors on safety-related choices of laboratory workers in two hypothetical but realistic scenarios. Participants were faced with hypothetical choice scenarios with realistic features instead of traditional scaling techniques that ask about attitudes and perceptions. The methods are suitable for addressing many occupational safety concerns in which workers face tradeoffs in their safety-related decisions and behavior. Practical Application: Safety-related decisions regarding laboratory practices such as incident reporting and use of PPE were influenced primarily by workers' perceptions of risk of exposure and severity of risks to health and safety. This finding suggests the importance of providing laboratory workers with adequate and effective education and training on the hazards and risks associated with their work. DCEs are a promising research method for better understanding the relative influences of various personal, social, and organizational factors that shape laboratory safety decisions and practices. The information gained from DCEs may lead to more targeted training materials and interventions.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDecision MakingLaboratoriesAdultAttitudeHumansOccupational HealthDecision-makingDiscrete choice experimentLaboratory safety

Identifiers

PMID33334498
PMCPMC7755112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.