ArticleHeliyon2024
A Continuous Improvement Instrument for the evaluationof the ergonomics management system in the supply chain.
Article in Heliyon, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nowadays, organizations must comply with high-quality standards, health and safety regulations, and socially sustainable practices to succeed in a globalized world. Supply Chains (SC) enable them to satisfy their customers' needs for quality products just in time and at the best price. However, management systems (MS) need to be improved to identify, evaluate, and control ergonomic risks, which opens a research opportunity for Ergonomics Management Systems (EMS) as they apply to sustainable SCs. This study aims to design and validate an instrument to assess the EMS within a SC using a continuous improvement approach. The study used convenience sampling as experts were invited by e-mail, at congresses, and through a digital platform. A response rate of 6.2 % was obtained from the latter, and a total of 34 experts responded to the instrument. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were also carried out for the constructs of PLAN, DO, CHECK, and ACT. Finally, factors and variables were reduced by 42.71 %, leaving a 46-item final version of the instrument. Most of the structural model fit indices for the sample demonstrated good values, and the reliability indices were acceptable, this confirming the overall reliability of the instrument. In conclusion, the instrument was validated for all proposed constructs, with the exception of the PLAN construct. Thus, the instrument was found to be relevant and fit for implementation in EMS.
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.