Health and safety-Mod/high-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 22

Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-based treatments (Henggeler et al. 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the marginal impacts of three layered treatments—drug court hearings, substance abuse therapy, and contingency management counseling—on criminal justice outcomes…
Effect of a professional coaching intervention on the well-being and distress of physicians: A pilot randomized clinical trial (Dyrbye et al., 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of professional coaching on physicians’ well-being outcomes. The study is a randomized controlled trial. Participants…
Effect of control order on steering a simulated underground coal shuttle car (Burgess-Limerick, Zupanc, & Wallis 2013)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of first-order and second-order joystick controls on mining shuttle car steering accuracy over multiple trials. The study was a randomized controlled…
The real effects of mandated information on social responsibility in financial reports: Evidence from mine-safety records (Christensen et al. 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of mine safety disclosures (MSD) on health and safety outcomes. The authors used a difference-in-differences model to compare the changes in safety…
Evaluating the effectiveness of mine safety enforcement actions in forecasting the lost-days rate at specific worksites (Gernand 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspection violations on future accidents and injuries in underground coal mines. The author used…
Directional control-response compatibility relationships assessed by physical simulation of an underground bolting machine (Steiner, Burgess-Limerick, & Porter 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of directional control-response relationships on errors made when controlling roof-bolting machines. The study was a randomized controlled trial…
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…
A visual warning system to reduce struck-by or pinning accidents involving mobile mining equipment (Sammarco et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a visual warning system on motion detection time. The study was an experiment conducted in a laboratory setting. The authors assessed whether…
Adding contingency management intervention to vocational rehabilitation: Outcomes for dually diagnosed veterans (Drebing et al. 2007)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of contingency management (CM) on employment and health outcomes. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial, using a work history form and drug and alcohol…
Randomized government safety inspections reduce worker injuries with no detectable job loss (Levine et al. 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the effect of random OSHA inspections on firms’ injury-related outcomes and performance. To do this, the authors used a regression model to compare changes over…

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.