Review Protocol
You Recently Viewed
Mine Workers and Mine Health and Safety
This topic area focuses on the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing or preventing mine worker injury, illness, disability, exposure to hazards, and death. It includes interventions implemented in the United States, as well as countries with identified in collaboration with MSHA as being similar to the United States in the scope of industry, technological advancements, and safety practices (currently, the review includes studies of interventions implemented in Australia, Canada, Poland, South Africa, and Sweden). For each study in the review, CLEAR assesses the quality of the causal evidence and summarizes its approach, findings, and the intervention examined.
Additionally, CLEAR created an annotated bibliography that includes 17 studies of interventions that are designed to improve overall mine safety and prevent fatalities and illnesses among mine workers, but that could not be evaluated according to CLEAR Causal Evidence Guidelines due to the study designs.
Mine Workers and Mine Health and Safety Annotated Bibliography
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
-
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of seat suspension systems on mine worker health and safety outcomes. The study was a randomized controlled trial conducted in a laboratory setting.... -
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of mine safety disclosures (MSD) on health and safety outcomes. The authors used a difference-in-differences model to compare the changes in safety... -
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of risk management practices on mine worker health and safety outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental design to compare the differences in 25-year... -
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Mining Healthy Worksite Program (MHWP) on mine worker health and safety outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental design to assess self-... -
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspection violations on future accidents and injuries in underground coal mines. The author used... -
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of virtual mine rescue training on mine rescue process efficacy. Using survey data, the authors used an interrupted time series design to compare mine... -
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of an automated bagging system on mine worker health and safety outcomes. Using data from a sand mining plant, the author used an interrupted time... -
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of three different historical U.S. radon exposure standards on lung cancer mortality. The author used statistical models and data from the Colorado... -
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of directional control-response relationships on errors made when controlling roof-bolting machines. The study was a randomized controlled trial... -
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of first-order and second-order joystick controls on mining shuttle car steering accuracy over multiple trials. The study was a randomized controlled...
Pages
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
-
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
-
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
-
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
-
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
-
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
-
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
-
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
-
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
-
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
-
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
-
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
-
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
-
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
-
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
-
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.