↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative exploration of work-related head injury: vulnerability at the intersection of workers’ decision making and organizational values

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A qualitative exploration of work-related head injury: vulnerability at the intersection of workers’ decision making and organizational values
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4823-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Kontos, A. Grigorovich, B. Nowrouzi, B. Sharma, J. Lewko, T. Mollayeva, A. Colantonio

Abstract

Work-related head injury is a critical public health issue due to its rising prevalence; the association with profound disruption of workers' lives; and significant economic burdens in terms of medical costs and lost wages. Efforts to understand and prevent these types of injuries have largely been dominated by epidemiological research and safety science, which has focused on identifying risk at the level of the individual worker, population group, or organizational sector. Limited research has focused on the perspectives of the workers, a key stakeholder group for informing understanding of vulnerability to work-related head injury. This study explored workers' perspectives to better understand their decision-making and how and why their injuries occurred. We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews with thirty-two adult workers who had sustained a work-related head injury. Workers were recruited from an urban clinic in central Ontario, Canada. Labour Process Theory informed the thematic analysis. Three hazardous work conditions were identified: insufficient training; inadequate staffing; and inattention to the physical environment. In addition, professional and organizational norms were implicated in vulnerability to head injury including putting the client before the worker and the pressure to work unsafely. The findings also highlight a complex interrelationship between workers' decision-making and professional and organizational norms that produces vulnerability to head injury, a vulnerability which oftentimes is reproduced by workers' decisions to work despite hazardous conditions. Our findings suggest that, beyond the need to redress the inattention to hazards in the physical environment, there is a need to address norms that influence worker decision-making to improve the safety of workers. Using Labour Process Theory highlights an important social dynamic within workplace sectors that could inform future development and implementation of multi-level and integrated public health strategies to reduce work-related head injury.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 26 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 11%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 30 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,943,880
of 24,532,617 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,663
of 16,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,999
of 331,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#109
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,532,617 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.