↓ Skip to main content

Designing System Reforms: Using a Systems Approach to Translate Incident Analyses into Prevention Strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Designing System Reforms: Using a Systems Approach to Translate Incident Analyses into Prevention Strategies
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01974
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natassia Goode, Gemma J. M. Read, Michelle R. H. van Mulken, Amanda Clacy, Paul M. Salmon

Abstract

Advocates of systems thinking approaches argue that accident prevention strategies should focus on reforming the system rather than on fixing the "broken components." However, little guidance exists on how organizations can translate incident data into prevention strategies that address the systemic causes of accidents. This article describes and evaluates a series of systems thinking prevention strategies that were designed in response to the analysis of multiple incidents. The study was undertaken in the led outdoor activity (LOA) sector in Australia, which delivers supervised or instructed outdoor activities such as canyoning, sea kayaking, rock climbing and camping. The design process involved workshops with practitioners, and focussed on incident data analyzed using Rasmussen's AcciMap technique. A series of reflection points based on the systemic causes of accidents was used to guide the design process, and the AcciMap technique was used to represent the prevention strategies and the relationships between them, leading to the creation of PreventiMaps. An evaluation of the PreventiMaps revealed that all of them incorporated the core principles of the systems thinking approach and many proposed prevention strategies for improving vertical integration across the LOA system. However, the majority failed to address the migration of work practices and the erosion of risk controls. Overall, the findings suggest that the design process was partially successful in helping practitioners to translate incident data into prevention strategies that addressed the systemic causes of accidents; refinement of the design process is required to focus practitioners more on designing monitoring and feedback mechanisms to support decisions at the higher levels of the system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Engineering 7 11%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Psychology 4 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 28 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 September 2019.
All research outputs
#6,674,141
of 26,094,193 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,551
of 34,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,616
of 426,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#163
of 415 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,094,193 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 426,471 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 415 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.