ArticleProfessional safety2016
Toolbox Talks: Insights for Improvement.
Article in Professional safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Toolbox Trainings on Nursing Sensitive Quality Indicators: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of toolbox safety training in construction: The impact of narratives.American journal of industrial medicine · 2018Trial
- The mediating role of safety behavior in the relationship between safety climate and safety outcomes among sanitary workers in Pakistan.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tool box talks (TBTs) have the potential to improve communication, empower workers, reduce injuries and improve safety; however, they can also be "missed opportunities" for providing important safety messages in construction. The goal of this paper is to share the results from two research projects designed to improve the frequency, delivery, participation, and outcomes of TBTs. The results of these projects provide suggestions for planning and delivering TBTs in construction. Methods: In the first project, 86 residential carpentry foremen from 8 different residential contractors in the St. Louis region participated in training for delivering TBTs as part of an 8-hour fall prevention and safety communication intervention. We compared baseline measures of safety behavior and fall prevention knowledge items to follow-up between participating foremen and their crewmembers. Concurrently, surveys of 300 apprentice carpenters were collected to describe the frequency and delivery methods of TBT and to serve as a comparison group for the TBT intervention. In the second project, we evaluated the utility of ergonomics TBTs delivered by a safety representative to 36 carpenters and laborers. Workers rated their perceptions of topic relevance, delivery method, similarities to traditional TBTs, and intent to change behaviors. The safety representative provided feedback regarding the TBTs and reported their observations of improved worker use of ergonomics in work tasks post-training. Discussion / Conclusions: Both interventions described in this paper improved workplace safety. The interventions demonstrate how to simply shift from non-collaborative TBTs to participatory, context-driven TBTs by using a pre-printed TBT template, modified to address the hazards present at the worksite. Delivery suggestions relate the information to the workers, and include workers in the identification of problems and safety-related solutions. These participatory methods for preparing and delivering TBTs have the potential to improve construction workplace safety practices.
Identifiers
36060218PMC9434703What 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.