A debate exists about the impact of mineworker experience on health and safety (H&S). Studies often assert that length of time on the job (tenure) is negatively associated with accidents (i.e., new employees have a higher accident rate). However, inferences are all made based on reported incidents, whereas we know that underreporting is a problem in high-risk occupations. To that end, this study sought to examine how worker experience may impact a variety of H&S outcomes on the job. Comprised of three separate case studies with different H&S outcome variables, researchers broke down the results of several data sets that were collected from 3400 miners who worked in either underground coal, surface sand, stone, and gravel, or metal/non-metal to reveal any underlying trends among differing levels of experience on a specific job, with a specific company, and in the mining industry. Each case study is described in turn, using Kruskall-Wallis tests to determine the impact miners' experience on hazard recognition accuracy (Case 1), self-escape confidence (Case 2), and safety compliance (Case 3). The results show that workers with more job experience possess higher levels of perceived health and safety skills, including the identification of hazards on the job. We discuss the impact of experience on several predictors of incidents, including perceived job knowledge and hazard identification, and perceived compliance on the job. Practitioners can expect to gain a greater understanding of their workforce, including actual differences and similarities to consider, when communicating pieces of their health and safety management system to training workers of all experience levels.
In response to the opioid crisis in New York State (NYS), the Unified Court System developed a new treatment court model-the opioid intervention court-designed around 10 Essential Elements of practice to address the flaws of existing drug courts in handling those with opioid addiction via broader inclusion criteria, rapid screening, and linkage to medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD). The new court model is now being rolled out statewide yet, given the innovation of the opioid court, the exact barriers to implementation in different counties with a range of resources are largely unknown. We describe a study protocol for the development and efficacy-test of a new implementation intervention (Opioid Court REACH; Research on Evidence Based Approaches to Court Health) that will allow the opioid court, as framed by the 10 Essential Elements, to be scaled-up across 10 counties in NYS. Using a cluster-randomized stepped-wedge type-2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design, we will test: (a) the implementation impact of Opioid Court REACH in improving implementation outcomes along the opioid cascade of care (screening, referral, treatment enrollment, MOUD initiation), and (b) the clinical and cost effectiveness of Opioid Court REACH in improving public health (treatment retention/court graduation) and public safety (recidivism) outcomes. Opioid Court REACH has the potential *
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.