Identify and classify common errors, antecedents, outcomes, and mitigation strategies in qualitative and semi-quantitative workplace safety risk management: Integrating grounded theory and systematic literature review

IF 4.7 1区工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL

Safety Science Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106851

Fazel Rajabi , Mehdi Jahangiri , Moslem Alimohammadlou , Mojtaba Kamalinia

{"title":"Identify and classify common errors, antecedents, outcomes, and mitigation strategies in qualitative and semi-quantitative workplace safety risk management: Integrating grounded theory and systematic literature review","authors":"Fazel Rajabi , Mehdi Jahangiri , Moslem Alimohammadlou , Mojtaba Kamalinia","doi":"10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Risk management is a crucial tool for ensuring workplace safety. However, errors in this process can significantly undermine its effectiveness. This study aims to identify and classify common errors and pitfalls, along with their antecedents, outcomes, and mitigation strategies, within the qualitative and semi-quantitative Workplace Safety Risk Management (WSRM) processes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This research utilized a mixed-methods approach, integrating systematic review methodologies with grounded theory. A descriptive systematic review synthesized evidence from existing literature, utilizing databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. Additionally, empirical data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with ten subject matter experts. Data analysis was performed using the grounded theory approach, supported by MAXQDA software.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>A total of 49 distinct errors and pitfalls in WSRM were identified and categorized into seven classifications. Furthermore, 70 open codes related to influencing factors were identified, which included antecedent conditions, intervening factors, mitigation strategies, and outcomes, organized into relevant subcategories.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The findings of this study enhance our understanding of the factors that contribute to errors in qualitative and semi-quantitative WSRM. This knowledge can serve as a foundation for developing evaluation tools and error mitigation strategies within WSRM processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21375,"journal":{"name":"Safety Science","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 106851"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safety Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525000761","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Risk management is a crucial tool for ensuring workplace safety. However, errors in this process can significantly undermine its effectiveness. This study aims to identify and classify common errors and pitfalls, along with their antecedents, outcomes, and mitigation strategies, within the qualitative and semi-quantitative Workplace Safety Risk Management (WSRM) processes.

Methods

This research utilized a mixed-methods approach, integrating systematic review methodologies with grounded theory. A descriptive systematic review synthesized evidence from existing literature, utilizing databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. Additionally, empirical data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with ten subject matter experts. Data analysis was performed using the grounded theory approach, supported by MAXQDA software.

Findings

A total of 49 distinct errors and pitfalls in WSRM were identified and categorized into seven classifications. Furthermore, 70 open codes related to influencing factors were identified, which included antecedent conditions, intervening factors, mitigation strategies, and outcomes, organized into relevant subcategories.

Conclusion

The findings of this study enhance our understanding of the factors that contribute to errors in qualitative and semi-quantitative WSRM. This knowledge can serve as a foundation for developing evaluation tools and error mitigation strategies within WSRM processes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Safety Science 管理科学-工程：工业

CiteScore

13.00

自引率

9.80%

发文量

335

审稿时长

53 days

期刊介绍： Safety Science is multidisciplinary. Its contributors and its audience range from social scientists to engineers. The journal covers the physics and engineering of safety; its social, policy and organizational aspects; the assessment, management and communication of risks; the effectiveness of control and management techniques for safety; standardization, legislation, inspection, insurance, costing aspects, human behavior and safety and the like. Papers addressing the interfaces between technology, people and organizations are especially welcome.