Health and safety-Low-Favorable impacts

Recently Added

CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.

Search
for studies on
this topic using
keywords
and filters

Displaying 11 - 20 of 37

Coping with emotional labor: An intervention study (Weaver et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a workshop providing teachers with information about emotional labor and coping strategies on burnout, helpful coping skills, and unhelpful…
Reducing compassion fatigue in inpatient pediatric oncology nurses (Sullivan et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of a self-care program for pediatric oncology nurses on burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and compassion satisfaction. The study used…
The impact of lifestyle modification on cardiometabolic risk factors in health-care employees with type 2 diabetes (Das et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of My Unlimited Potential, a lifestyle modification intervention, on cardiometabolic risk factors including body mass index (BMI) and glycated…
Coping with emotional labor: An intervention study (Weaver, Allen, & Byrne, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a workshop providing teachers with information about emotional labor and coping strategies on burnout, helpful coping skills, and unhelpful…
Returns to compensation in trucking: Does safety pay? (Faulkiner & Belzer, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of hiring experienced drivers and paying them higher wages, rather than hiring new drivers and paying lower wages, on continued employment at the…
The impact of enhanced incentives on vocational rehabilitation outcomes for dually diagnosed veterans (Drebing et al. 2005)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of enhanced incentives within an existing Veteran’s Administration (VA) Compensated Work Therapy (CWT) program on sustained abstinence from substances, transitioning to…
Implementation of risk management programs: Identification of best practices to reduce injuries and maximize economic benefits (Burgess 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of risk management practices on mine worker health and safety outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental design to compare the differences in 25-year…
The Mining Healthy Worksite Program (Cherniack 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Mining Healthy Worksite Program (MHWP) on mine worker health and safety outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental design to assess self-…
Evaluation of automated vs. manual bagger exposures related to ergonomics, dust, and noise at a sand mine processing plant (Wilson 2015)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of an automated bagging system on mine worker health and safety outcomes. Using data from a sand mining plant, the author used an interrupted time…
Shape-coding and length-coding as a measure to reduce the probability of selection errors during the control of industrial equipment (Steiner & Burgess-Limerick 2013)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of shape-coding and length-coding of roof-bolting machine levers on selection errors made when controlling the machines. The authors conducted three…

CLEAR Icon Key

Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.

High Causal Evidence

Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence

Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence

Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis

Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis

Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis

Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable

Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.