Skip to main content
  • Mine Workers and Mine Health and Safety

    This topic area focuses on the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing or preventing mine worker injury, illness, disability, exposure to hazards, and death. It includes interventions implemented in the United States, as well as countries with identified in collaboration with MSHA as being similar to the United States in the scope of industry, technological advancements, and safety practices (currently, the review includes studies of interventions implemented in Australia, Canada, Poland, South Africa, and Sweden). For each study in the review, CLEAR assesses the quality of the causal evidence and summarizes its approach, findings, and the intervention examined.

    Additionally, CLEAR created an annotated bibliography that includes 17 studies of interventions that are designed to improve overall mine safety and prevent fatalities and illnesses among mine workers, but that could not be evaluated according to CLEAR Causal Evidence Guidelines due to the study designs.

    Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 2008 - 2019.

Recently Added

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

Export Results

Displaying 11 - 13 of 13

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

    High Causal Evidence Icon

    Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.

  • Moderate Causal Evidence

    Moderate Causal Evidence Icon

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

  • Low Causal Evidence

    Low Causal Evidence Icon

    Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.

  • Causal Impact Analysis

    Causal Analysis (No Rating) Icon

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

  • Descriptive Analysis

    Descriptive Analysis Icon

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

  • Implementation Analysis

    Implementation Analysis Icon

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

  • Unfavorable

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

    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.

    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.