SynthesisWork (Reading, Mass.)2024
Human error and violation of rules in industrial safety: A systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2024. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman error and violation of rules are perceived as deviations from some desired behavior, appearing variably in literature as either similar or opposing concepts. Behavioral deviations may be linked to accidents or considered a protective factor against them.
objectiveThis article aims to explore definitions, characteristics, classifications, and management approaches for behavioral deviations, specifically human error and violation of rules.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted.
resultsThe authors differ in defining and classifying error and violation, associating them with generation of accidents or their prevention. The management proposals for deviations highlighted by the authors were emphasized.
conclusionThe findings of this article reinforce the prominence of authors Jens Rasmussen and James Reason in the field. They assert that deviations are a natural aspect of the work process and even serve as a preventive factor against accidents, although their frequent association with accidents remains common in organizations. This study contributes to theoretical understanding by systematizing prevalent perspectives on deviation, human error, and violation of rules. It proposes a taxonomy and emphasizing the need for managing deviations, rather than combating them, especially in an organizational context.
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.