Rail suicide: A systematic review using systems thinking

IF 4.7 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
G.J.M. Read , I. Elstak , A. Naweed , J.A. Cox , L.S. Too , D.F. Hermens , R. McClure , P.M. Salmon
{"title":"Rail suicide: A systematic review using systems thinking","authors":"G.J.M. Read ,&nbsp;I. Elstak ,&nbsp;A. Naweed ,&nbsp;J.A. Cox ,&nbsp;L.S. Too ,&nbsp;D.F. Hermens ,&nbsp;R. McClure ,&nbsp;P.M. Salmon","doi":"10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Rail suicide is a complex problem with significant adverse social and economic impacts. Systems thinking approaches are commonly used to understand emergent outcomes in complex systems. Systems thinking takes the system as the unit of analysis; often using a hierarchical representation to show how decisions and actions made across levels of a system (e.g., by governments, regulators, industry associations, companies, and individuals) can interact to create adverse outcomes. However, the extent to which rail suicide research has explored the problem from a systems thinking approach is unclear. A systematic review was conducted to identify: (1) the theories and methods that have been used to investigate rail suicide in the peer reviewed literature; (2) the contributory and demographic/risk factors for rail suicide identified across system levels; and (3) the preventative measures to address rail suicide that have been evaluated in published studies. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines and the systems thinking techniques AcciMap and PreventiMap were used to map factors and interventions across system levels. Gaps identified included a lack of consideration of contributory factors at higher system levels, that few preventative measures have been subject to evaluation, and that there has been little consideration of relationships between preventative measures. The review highlights the need for structured systems approaches to gain a more holistic understanding of rail suicide and to design more effective preventative measures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21375,"journal":{"name":"Safety Science","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 106856"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","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/S0925753525000815","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

Rail suicide is a complex problem with significant adverse social and economic impacts. Systems thinking approaches are commonly used to understand emergent outcomes in complex systems. Systems thinking takes the system as the unit of analysis; often using a hierarchical representation to show how decisions and actions made across levels of a system (e.g., by governments, regulators, industry associations, companies, and individuals) can interact to create adverse outcomes. However, the extent to which rail suicide research has explored the problem from a systems thinking approach is unclear. A systematic review was conducted to identify: (1) the theories and methods that have been used to investigate rail suicide in the peer reviewed literature; (2) the contributory and demographic/risk factors for rail suicide identified across system levels; and (3) the preventative measures to address rail suicide that have been evaluated in published studies. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines and the systems thinking techniques AcciMap and PreventiMap were used to map factors and interventions across system levels. Gaps identified included a lack of consideration of contributory factors at higher system levels, that few preventative measures have been subject to evaluation, and that there has been little consideration of relationships between preventative measures. The review highlights the need for structured systems approaches to gain a more holistic understanding of rail suicide and to design more effective preventative measures.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Safety Science
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信