A holistic view and evaluation of health and safety at work: Enabling the assessment of the overall burden
Safety Science, ISSN: 0925-7535, Vol: 156, Page: 105900
2022
- 10Citations
- 42Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The social burden of unsafe and unhealthy workplaces is extremely high, with more than a billion victims of work-related illnesses per year, but a unified and comparable view of workers’ unsafe and unhealthy loads is still missing. This paper proposes a holistic approach that enables the comparison of Health and Safety (H&S) matters by quantifying the expected damage through a unique consistent indicator (R), that is, the average number of potential lost days of a worker in a working configuration. Evaluating risks of working configurations and then defining the overall company risks, enables decision-makers to quantitatively assess the burden to make well-grounded decisions for far-sighted strategies enhancing H&S. This study proposes a four-step process that finally returns the overall risk level (R) in terms of number of lost days. These steps are structured in a way that can be implemented regardless of any contexts’ features; their actual implementation, instead, will require a quantification that is assumed to be context – country at least – dependent because it will be grounded on potentially different available datasets. An example is provided in the paper, that fits the four-step process into the Italian context, by combining three types of risks – impact, cutting, and noise – under the same indicator (R). The approach has great potential for future applications in real working contexts. The four-step process has the potential to be used as a practical tool to assess the economic impact of the actual risk load over the years.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753522002399; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105900; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85136489799&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925753522002399; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105900
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know