Stakeholders’ Perspectives About and Priorities for Economic Evaluation of Health and Safety Programs in Healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identified and prioritized resources and outcomes that should be considered in more comprehensive and scientifically rigorous health and safety economic evaluations according to healthcare sector stakeholders. A literature review and stakeholder interviews identified candidate resources and outcomes and then a Delphi panel ranked them. According to the panel, the top five resources were (a) health and safety staff time; (b) training workers; (c) program planning, promotion, and evaluation costs; (d) equipment purchases and upgrades; and (e) administration costs. The top five outcomes were (a) number of injuries, illnesses, and general sickness absences; (b) safety climate; (c) days lost due to injuries, illnesses, and general sickness absences; (d) job satisfaction and engagement; and (e) quality of care and patient safety. These findings emphasize stakeholders' stated priorities and are useful as a benchmark for assessing the quality of health and safety economic evaluations and the comprehensiveness of these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".