ArticleToxics2022
The Differences in Risk Perception between Practitioners in the Non-Coal-Mining Industry: Miners, Managers and Experts.
Article in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Non-coal-mining accidents occur frequently in China, and individual unsafe behaviors are the direct cause. The cognitive diversity of practitioners in the non-coal-mining industry leads to various behaviors in work and hinders communication between groups. The aim of this study is to analyze the differences in risk perception (accidents and occupational diseases) between non-coal-mining practitioners (experts, miners, and managers) and to explore the contributing factors. The questionnaire survey method was used to collect the data on risk perception and influencing factors from 402 respondents working in non-coal mines and universities in China. Project analysis and exploratory factor analysis were used for preprocessing. A t-test and linear regression analysis were used to test the significance of the differences and assess the function of the factors, respectively. Regarding risk perception, two risks both have significant differences between the three groups. With the perceptions of accidents and occupational diseases ranked from high to low, the order of the practitioners is as follows: managers (3.88), experts (3.71), miners (3.55) and experts (4.14), miners (3.90), and managers (3.88). Regarding the influencing factors, risk attitude, risk communication, educational level, enterprise trust, and occupational satisfaction have great effects on the three groups. More precisely, three groups have different important predictors. Risk attitude has the greatest impact on miners (0.290) and experts (0.369), but sensibility preference has the greatest impact on managers (0.518). In summary, cognitive discrepancies are common among non-coal-mining practitioners, but the degree of deviation varies with the type and dimension of the risk. There are six factors that have a significant impact on all practitioners, but the effect is limited by specific risks and groups.
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.