ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Safety Performance of Healthcare Professionals: Validation and Use of the Adapted Workplace Health and Safety Instrument.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The relational effects of perceived organizational support, fear of COVID-19, and work-related stress on the safety performance of healthcare workers.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Safety Performance in Acute Medical Care: A Qualitative, Explorative Study on the Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improving patient safety and reducing occupational accidents are two of the main challenges in healthcare. Instruments to measure safety performance and occupational safety are rare. This study aimed to prepare and validate a German version of the adapted workplace health and safety instrument to assess the safety performance of healthcare professionals. Overall, 168 healthcare professionals participated in this explorative cross-sectional study. The instrument consists of 16 items related to safety performance in four dimensions. We calculated mean values and standard deviations for each individual item and those of the four dimensions of the instrument. We evaluated internal consistency and construct validity, explored the dimensionality of the instrument through exploratory factor analysis, and tested how our data fit with the original model with confirmatory factor analysis. Among the participants, 73.8% were nurses and nurses in training, with the majority of the sample being female (71.9%) and younger than 30 (52.5%). Cronbach's alpha for all four dimensions was >0.7. All items were loaded on factors according to the original theoretical model. Confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit (normed χ²/df = 1.43 (≤2.5), root mean square error of approximation = 0.06 (≤0.07), goodness of fit index = 0.90 (>0.90), comparative fit index = 0.95 (≥0.90), and Tucker-Lewis index = 0.93 (>0.90). The German version of the instrument demonstrated acceptable properties and was a good fit to the original theoretical model, allowing measurement of healthcare professionals' safety knowledge, motivation, compliance, and participation.
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.