ArticleJournal of safety research2026
Understanding internal and external influences on seat belt use in the oil and gas extraction industry.
Article in Journal of safety research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMotor-vehicle crashes (MVCs) are the leading cause of work-related death among U.S. Oil and Gas Extraction (OGE) industry workers. It is possible that seat belt use could have contributed to reducing MVC-related deaths. Although research has identified instances of non-seat belt use in this industry, reasons behind this behavior are not well understood.
methodsA convenience sample of OGE employees participated in interviews (n = 18 workers) and three focus groups (n = 9 supervisors). Instruments incorporated theoretical constructs from the Health Belief Model (HBM) to obtain perceptions and experiences that might impact work-related seat belt use. Worker and supervisor data were qualitatively analyzed and then triangulated to cross-validate findings and ensure data saturation. Themes were deductively aligned with HBM constructs.
resultsMost participants reported always using their seat belts or observing employee seat belt use. Some participants acknowledged circumstances when they or others might not wear a seat belt. Four primary themes emerged: Situational risk and readiness, Company behavioral norms, Belief-based barriers, and Personal safety standards. Within each theme, several codes provided additional insights that aligned with HBM constructs including perceived susceptibility to experiencing an MVC and severity of the outcome; perceived barriers and benefits to using a seatbelt; and cues to action that prompted seat belt use over time. Conclusions/Practical applications: Our data suggest that worker knowledge of company programs and associated consequences of non-compliance, including supervisory enforcement, support seat belt use. State laws and technology found in company vehicles such as in-vehicle monitoring systems and phone apps also influence seat belt use. Future research may explore how to integrate these aspects into a driving safety program that serves as a comprehensive cue to action hence, enhancing perceived benefits of seat belt use, correcting misconceptions about barriers, and incorporating strategic messaging, training, and education during onboarding and at times of heighted perceived susceptibility and severity.
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.