Safety is monitored by various proactive and reactive methods, including the investigation of adverse accidents and incidents, which are collectively known as safety investigations. In this study we demonstrate how accident and incident investigation reports can be useful to identify implicit safety views and accident investigation approaches. An analysis framework was developed based on contemporary safety literature. The framework incorporates aspects such as hindsight bias, judgemental approach, proximal or distal focus, and the application of systemic versus sequential accident causation models. The framework was piloted through the analysis of sixteen (16) accident investigation reports published by a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). The comments of independent researchers lead to framework refinements that increased the inter-rater reliability substantially. The initial results were validated through interviews with the staff of the NPP. Afterwards, the framework was applied to 52 air accident reports published by the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) from 1999 to 2013. Frequency calculations revealed the extent of new safety thinking embracement from the DSB, and Fisher’s Exact Test showed that none of the modern safety aspects has changed over time. The framework can be used to analyse accident investigation reports published by various organisations as means to identify implicit safety views and evolution of accident investigation practices over time. Further research will explore the reasons for potential gaps between theory and practice and contribute to minimizing such distance. Safety is monitored by various proactive and reactive methods, including the investigation of adverse accidents and incidents, which are collectively known as safety investigations. In this study we demonstrate how accident and incident investigation reports can be useful to identify implicit safety views and accident investigation approaches. An analysis framework was developed based on contemporary safety literature. The framework incorporates aspects such as hindsight bias, judgemental approach, proximal or distal focus, and the application of systemic versus sequential accident causation models. The framework was piloted through the analysis of sixteen (16) accident investigation reports published by a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). The comments of independent researchers lead to framework refinements that increased the inter-rater reliability substantially. The initial results were validated through interviews with the staff of the NPP. Afterwards, the framework was applied to 52 air accident reports published by the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) from 1999 to 2013. Frequency calculations revealed the extent of new safety thinking embracement from the DSB, and Fisher’s Exact Test showed that none of the modern safety aspects has changed over time. The framework can be used to analyse accident investigation reports published by various organisations as means to identify implicit safety views and evolution of accident investigation practices over time. Further research will explore the reasons for potential gaps between theory and practice and contribute to minimizing such distance.
Previous research shows that automatic tendency to approach alcohol plays a causal role in problematic alcohol use and can be retrained by Approach Bias Modification (ApBM). ApBM has been shown to be effective for patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder (AUD) in inpatient treatment. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of adding an online ApBM to treatment as usual (TAU) in an outpatient setting compared to receiving TAU with an online placebo training. 139 AUD patients receiving face-to-face or online treatment as usual (TAU) participated in the study. The patients were randomized to an active or placebo version of 8 sessions of online ApBM over a 5-week period. The weekly consumed standard units of alcohol (primary outcome) was measured at pre-and post-training, 3 and 6 months follow-up. Approach tendency was measured pre-and-post ApBM training. No additional effect of ApBM was found on alcohol intake, nor other outcomes such as craving, depression, anxiety, or stress. A significant reduction of the alcohol approach bias was found. This research showed that approach bias retraining in AUD patients in an outpatient treatment setting reduces the tendency to approach alcohol, but this training effect does not translate into a significant difference in alcohol reduction between groups. Explanations for the lack of effects of ApBM on alcohol consumption are treatment goal and severity of AUD. Future ApBM research should target outpatients with an abstinence goal and offer alternative, more user-friendly modes of delivering ApBM training.
MULTIFILE
Background: Motor learning is central to domains such as sports and rehabilitation; however, often terminologies are insufficiently uniform to allow effective sharing of experience or translation of knowledge. A study using a Delphi technique was conducted to ascertain level of agreement between experts from different motor learning domains (i.e., therapists, coaches, researchers) with respect to definitions and descriptions of a fundamental conceptual distinction within motor learning, namely implicit and explicit motor learning. Methods: A Delphi technique was embedded in multiple rounds of a survey designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions of 49 international respondents with expertise related to motor learning. The survey was administered via an online survey program and accompanied by feedback after each round. Consensus was considered to be reached if $70% of the experts agreed on a topic. Results: Consensus was reached with respect to definitions of implicit and explicit motor learning, and seven common primary intervention strategies were identified in the context of implicit and explicit motor learning. Consensus was not reached with respect to whether the strategies promote implicit or explicit forms of learning. Discussion: The definitions and descriptions agreed upon may aid translation and transfer of knowledge between domains in the field of motor learning. Empirical and clinical research is required to confirm the accuracy of the definitions and to explore the feasibility of the strategies that were identified in research, everyday practice and education.
![Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419021423483168.68f_a863_4e94_84cd_cf2a63540cea_18310_jenny_van_der_stee-thumbnail-400x300.png)
