Perception of just culture and its association with work–related psychosocial factors in an Iranian industrial setting: Implications for prevention of errors

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

A just culture is one in which the reporting of errors and near misses is supported without fear of retribution. The relationship of just culture and psychosocial factors at work has not been explored sufficiently in the literature.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the perception of just culture and its association with socio-demographic and work-related psychosocial factors among 302 employees in an industrial setting in Iran.

METHODS:

Just culture was assessed using the Just Culture Assessment Tool, and the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire was used for evaluation of psychosocial work factors (including influence at work, meaning of work, commitment to the workplace, predictability, rewards, quality of leadership, social support from supervisors, trust, and justice and respect). Data were analysed using t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and general linear regression analysis.

RESULTS:

The results indicated that the employees had a fairly positive view on their organisation’s just culture, though there were some areas such as trust and balance that needed further attention. The psychosocial issues (particularly commitment to the workplace, meaning of work, social support from supervisors, and rewards) were not adequate from the employees’ perspective. Predictability, rewards, and quality of leadership, were the significant psychosocial predictors of just culture in a multivariate regression model.

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings highlight the areas that need to be considered to improve the experience of organisational just culture, which is important from the point of view of prevention of safety errors and incidents.

Keywords

Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire just culture assessment tool petrochemical plant psychology

1. Introduction

The issue of human error in organisations and industries has been the subject of attention for more than several decades. The human-centered approach of human error management with emphasis on unsafe behaviour for preventing errors is still commonly used in many organisations. However, to deal with human errors, it has been acknowledged that it is necessary to change the conditions in which people work [1]. One of the best approaches to solve this problem is to focus on organisational safety (or safety culture), which can be defined as: “the enduring value and priority placed on employees and public safety by everyone in every group at every level of an organisation” [2]. As noted by Reason [3], the structure of a safety culture is based on cultures that are just (e.g., reporting, learning, informing and being flexible). A just culture, as a part of an organisation’s overall safety culture, establishes an atmosphere of trust, encouraging and rewarding employees for providing essential safety-related information [3], and is explicit about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour [4]. In other words, a just culture not only aims to respond to anxiety about blame-free reporting approaches, but also to a concern about individuals’ willingness to keep reporting safety-related issues [5]. Therefore, promotion of just culture in an organisation has the potential to better analyse the risks and reduce errors and their negative consequences.

Work-related psychosocial factors are one of the most important aspects of the work environment, which their negative consequences are substantial for employees, organisations, and society [6 –10]. Work-related psychosocial risks are generally relevant to the design and management of working systems and their social and organisational contexts [11] and concerned with the interactions between the employee, working groups, and organisation [12]. It has been acknowledged that consideration of psychosocial factors as an integral part of analysis of the work environment strengthen the idea that both the individual and the external situation together form a more functional system [13]. Therefore, a better understanding of the work-related psychosocial factors and interactions of employees with other people and organisational contexts that make up their working environment may have a considerable impact on employees’ health and workplace safety.

Several researchers have pointed out the association between psychosocial work factors and safety culture in healthcare settings [14 –16]. Biddison et al. [14] reported positive relationships between safety culture and employee engagement among healthcare employees. Sexton et al. [15] reported that providing feedback following leadership WalkRounds was associated with better patient safety culture and higher employee engagement. Management and supervisor support for patient safety have also been noted as predictors of patient safety [16]. While some attention has been paid to the issue of just culture in healthcare, little effort has been made to determine the relationship between just culture and psychosocial factors in other industries. This may, in part, be attributable to the lack of a comprehensive and appropriate tool for assessing just culture in various work settings. Most previous studies on just culture has been focused on healthcare settings, while far less attention has been paid to this issue in industrial settings. Research to be conducted on this issue will have important implications in terms of employees’ health and performance and workplace safety. Therefore, in an attempt to address this issue, the present study was conducted to assess the perception of just culture among employees in an industrial setting in Iran and explore its association with work-related psychosocial factors in that working environment.

2. Methodology

2.1 Study design, setting and procedure

This cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study was conducted between September and November 2017 in a petrochemical plant in Tabriz, the capital of the East-Azerbaijan Province of Northwest Iran. Data on socio-demographic and job attributes, just culture and psychosocial factors were collected using a questionnaire.

2.2 Participants

Being a full-time employee with at least one year working experience, working as either control room or field operator, and having no chronic mental problem (by self-report) were considered as inclusion criteria for the study. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed among eligible employees, of which 302 employees completed and returned the questionnaires (response rate of 75.5%). All participants were familiarised with the study aims and procedure and a signed informed consent form was obtained from all participants before their participation. The study protocol was approved by the local ethical committee of the petrochemical plant where the study was conducted.

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Just culture

The Just Culture Assessment Tool (JCAT) developed by Petschonek et al. [17] was used to evaluate the concept of just culture. JCAT contains 27 items and consists of six subscales: feedback and communication (3 items–e.g., “We don’t know about events that happen in our unit”), openness of communication (5 items–e.g., “Staff feel uncomfortable discussing events with supervisors”), balance (5 items–e.g., “Staff members are usually blamed when involved in an event”), quality of the event reporting process (5 items–e.g., “The event reporting system is easy to use”), continuous improvement (4 items–e.g., “There are improvements because of event reporting”), and trust (5 items e.g., “I trust that the organisation will handle events fairly”). Each item in this tool is rated on a 7-point Likert response format (totally disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, slightly agree, moderately agree, totally agree). The JCAT includes both positively and negatively worded questions and the negative scores were reversed in order to obtain a higher score. Higher scores on all items reflect a positive view of the organisation’s just culture. The Farsi version of the JCAT, with established validity and reliability, was used in the present study [18]. It should be noted that since the original version of this tool was developed for healthcare settings, a panel of 10 experts evaluated the tool items to adjust it to the present research and minor changes related to wording and clarity were made based on their feedback. The Cronbach’s α for the JCAT and its subscales were as follows: total JCAT = 0.92, feedback and communication = 0.88, openness of communication = 0.77, balance = 0.67, quality of the event reporting process = 0.79, continuous improvement = 0.71 and trust = 0.69.

2.3.2 Socio-demographic details

The collected socio-demographic attributes were: age, gender, marital status (single or married), educational level (diploma, graduate and post graduate), job experience (years) and job type (control room operators or field operators).

2.3.3 Psychosocial factors

Work-related psychosocial factors were evaluated using the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) [7]. The English version of COPSOQ had been translated and revised into Persian language [12]. Nine scales of this questionnaire were used in this study as follows: influence at work (2 items: “Do you have a large degree of influence concerning your work?”, and “Can you influence the amount of work assigned to you?”, α= 0.90), meaning of work (2 items: “Is your work meaningful?”, and “Do you feel that the work you do is important?”, α= 0.70), commitment to the workplace (1 item: “Do you feel that your place of work is of great importance to you?”), predictability (2 items: “At your place of work, are you informed well in advance concerning for example important decisions, changes, or plans for the future”, and “Do you receive all the information you need in order to do your work well?”, α= 0.80), rewards (2 items: “Is your work recognised and appreciated by the management?”, and “Are you treated fairly at your workplace?”, α= 0.69), quality of leadership (2 items: “To what extent would you say that your immediate superior gives high priority to job satisfaction?”, and “To what extent would you say that your immediate superior is good at work planning?”, α= 0.97), social support from supervisors (2 items: “How often is your nearest superior willing to listen to your problems at work?, and “How often do you get help and support from your nearest superior?”, α= 0.98), trust (2 items: “Can you trust the information that comes from the management?”, and “Does the management trust the employees to do their work well?”, α= 0.81), and justice and respect (2 items: “Are conflicts resolved in a fair way?”, and “Is the work distributed fairly?”, α= 0.69). Responses on the individual items were rated on 5-point Likert scales (4 = always, 3 = often, 2 = some times, 1 = seldom, and 0 = never/hardly or 4 = to a very large extent, 3 = to a large extent, 2 = somewhat, 1 = to a small extent, and 0 = to a very small extent). The scores were subsequently transformed into a scale ranging from 0 to 100 for comparison purposes, with higher scores indicating higher levels of the measured dimension of the psychosocial work environment [19].

2.4 Data analysis

The data analysis was performed using SPSS software v. 21 (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA). Normality of the data was checked and confirmed by Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Prior to the analyses, the independent variables were classified as follows: gender (male and female), age (≤30, 31–39, and ≥40 years), marital status (married and single), educational level (diploma, undergraduate, and postgraduate), job tenure (≤5, 6–9, and ≥10 years), and job type (control room operators and field operators). For the psychosocial work factors, the responses were dichotomised into low and high based on the median for each measure as follows: influence at work (low ≤62.5, and high > 62.5), meaning of work (low ≤62.5, and high > 62.5), commitment to the workplace (low ≤50.0, and high > 50.0), predictability (low ≤37.5, and high > 37.5), rewards (low ≤37.5, and high > 37.5), quality of leadership (low ≤25.0, and high > 25.0), social support from supervisors (low ≤50.0, and high > 50.0), trust (low ≤25.0, and high > 25.0), and justice and respect (low ≤50.0, and high > 50.0). The relationship of just culture (JCAT total score) with dichotomous (gender, marital status, job type and psychosocial work factors) and multi-category (age, educational level and job tenure) variables were assessed using t test and analysis of variance (ANOVA), respectively. Those variables with p value less than 0.1 were subsequently included in a general linear regression analysis using main effect model. The qualitative variables were included as marker variables in the multiple linear regression model. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1 Just culture

Table 1 presents the scores of JCAT for the study population. Total mean (SD) score of the JCAT was 106.1 (20.0) (range = 68–148), indicating that the employees generally had a positive perception of just culture in their work environment. The feedback and communication (mean (SD) = 12.7 (4.1)) and openness of communication (mean (SD) = 20.3 (4.4)) were the subscales with the lowest and highest mean scores, respectively.

Table 1
Scores of the JCAT

Variables Mean SD Min Max

Feedback and communication 12.7 4.1 5 21

Openness of communication 20.3 4.4 11 33

Balance 18.6 4.7 10 30

Quality of the event reporting process 19.2 4.2 5 29

Continuous improvement 16.7 2.5 4 22

Trust 18.2 4.2 5 29

Total JCAT score 106.1 20.0 68 148

Variables	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Feedback and communication	12.7	4.1	5	21
Openness of communication	20.3	4.4	11	33
Balance	18.6	4.7	10	30
Quality of the event reporting process	19.2	4.2	5	29
Continuous improvement	16.7	2.5	4	22
Trust	18.2	4.2	5	29
Total JCAT score	106.1	20.0	68	148

3.2 Socio-demographic factors

The socio-demographic attributes of the participating employees are presented in Table 2. The mean (SD) age of participants was 34.9 (6.6) (range = 23–55 years). Majority of participants were males (78.4%), and married (73.5%). Regarding the education level, 26.8%had a diploma, 38.2%had an undergraduate, and 35%had a postgraduate degree. Participants’ mean (SD) job experience was 8.9 (5.1) years. Meanwhile, 58.8%of participants belonged to the production and operation units (field operators), and 41.2%were control room operators. Among the socio-demographic factors, only job tenure had a significant association (p < 0.01) with just culture in the studied population. This finding indicated that those employees with less than 10 years of job experience had better scores of just culture than those who had been working there for more than 10 years. No other significant relationships were found among the variables in this regard.

Table 2
Association of socio-demographic factors with just culture among study participants (n = 306)

Variables n % JCAT score P value

Mean SD

Gender

Male 240 78.4 105.6 19.7 0.697

female 66 21.6 107.8 21.0

Age (years)

≤30 87 28.5 106.2 19.2 0.769

31–39 147 48.0 106.7 19.0

≥40 72 23.5 104.6 22.9

Marital status

Single 81 26.5 109.7 19.0 0.201

Married 225 73.5 105.5 19.9

Educational level

Diploma 82 26.8 106.5 21.3 0.861

Undergraduate 117 38.2 106.5 19.8

Postgraduate 107 35.0 105.2 19.3

Job tenure (years)

≤5 84 27.4 108.6 18.7 0.002

6–9 122 39.9 109.0 18.0

≥10 100 32.7 100.3 22.2

Job type

Control room operators 126 41.2 106.8 19.9 0.444

Field operators 180 58.8 105.6 20.1

Variables	n	%	JCAT score	P value
Gender
Male	240	78.4	105.6	19.7	0.697
female	66	21.6	107.8	21.0
Age (years)
≤30	87	28.5	106.2	19.2	0.769
31–39	147	48.0	106.7	19.0
≥40	72	23.5	104.6	22.9
Marital status
Single	81	26.5	109.7	19.0	0.201
Married	225	73.5	105.5	19.9
Educational level
Diploma	82	26.8	106.5	21.3	0.861
Undergraduate	117	38.2	106.5	19.8
Postgraduate	107	35.0	105.2	19.3
Job tenure (years)
≤5	84	27.4	108.6	18.7	0.002
6–9	122	39.9	109.0	18.0
≥10	100	32.7	100.3	22.2
Job type
Control room operators	126	41.2	106.8	19.9	0.444
Field operators	180	58.8	105.6	20.1

3.3 Psychosocial factors

The scores of the COPSOQ are presented in Table 3. The majority of respondents reported that the commitment to the workplace (85.3%), meaning of work (80.1%) and social support from supervisors (73.5%) were low in their workplace. Also, a high percentage of employees (64.7%) believed that the reward system was not appropriate in their workplace. The study’s results showed that all psychosocial work factors were significantly positively associated with employees’ perception of just culture (JCAT total score) (all p < 0.001).

Table 3
Association of psychosocial work factors with just culture among study participants (n = 306)

Variables n % JCAT score P value

Mean SD

Influence at work

High 127 41.5 115.0 18.2 < 0.001

Low 179 58.5 99.8 18.8

Meaning of work

High 61 19.9 125.7 11.9 < 0.001

Low 245 80.1 101.2 18.6

Commitment to the workplace

High 45 14.7 123.6 16.9 < 0.001

Low 261 85.3 103.0 18.9

Predictability

High 130 42.5 124.3 10.8 < 0.001

Low 176 57.5 92.6 13.6

Rewards

High 108 35.3 127.2 7.8 < 0.001

Low 198 64.7 94.6 14.5

Quality of leadership

High 132 43.1 124.6 11.3 < 0.001

Low 174 56.9 92.0 12.1

Social support from supervisors

High 81 26.5 129.3 7.4 < 0.001

Low 225 73.5 97.7 16.2

Trust

High 127 41.5 122.8 13.7 < 0.001

Low 179 58.5 94.2 14.5

Justice and respect

High 159 52.0 115.1 17.7 < 0.001

Low 147 48.0 93.3 13.6

Variables	n	%	JCAT score	P value
Influence at work
High	127	41.5	115.0	18.2	< 0.001
Low	179	58.5	99.8	18.8
Meaning of work
High	61	19.9	125.7	11.9	< 0.001
Low	245	80.1	101.2	18.6
Commitment to the workplace
High	45	14.7	123.6	16.9	< 0.001
Low	261	85.3	103.0	18.9
Predictability
High	130	42.5	124.3	10.8	< 0.001
Low	176	57.5	92.6	13.6
Rewards
High	108	35.3	127.2	7.8	< 0.001
Low	198	64.7	94.6	14.5
Quality of leadership
High	132	43.1	124.6	11.3	< 0.001
Low	174	56.9	92.0	12.1
Social support from supervisors
High	81	26.5	129.3	7.4	< 0.001
Low	225	73.5	97.7	16.2
Trust
High	127	41.5	122.8	13.7	< 0.001
Low	179	58.5	94.2	14.5
Justice and respect
High	159	52.0	115.1	17.7	< 0.001
Low	147	48.0	93.3	13.6

3.4 Predictors of just culture

General linear models were used to determine the predictors of just culture among the employees under study (Table 4). Among the included variables, predictability (β= –18.5; CI = –22.1, –15.9; p < 0.001), rewards (β= –11.9; CI = –18.0, –5.9; p < 0.001), and quality of leadership (β= –10.3; CI = –16.3, –4.3; p < 0.001) were found to be the predictors of just culture. This means that low levels of predictability, rewards, and quality of leadership were independently associated with poor just culture in this working population. These variables explained 78%of the variance in the model.

Table 4
Estimates of linear regression for predictive factors of just culture

Variables B SE 95%CI p value

Lower bound Upper bound

Job tenure (years)

≤5 2.0 1.4 –0.7 4.9 0.154

6–9 1.1 1.3 –1.5 3.7 0.406

≥10 Reference

Influence at work

Low 1.7 1.3 –1.0 4.4 0.218

High Reference

Meaning of work

Low 0.01 1.9 –3.7 3.7 0.997

High Reference

Commitment to the workplace

Low –3.4 1.8 –6.9 0.1 0.061

High Reference

Predictability

Low –18.5 1.8 –22.1 –15.9 < 0.001

High Reference

Rewards

Low –11.9 3.0 –18.0 –5.9 < 0.001

High Reference

Quality of leadership

Low –10.3 3.0 –16.3 –4.3 < 0.001

High Reference

Social support from supervisors

Low 3.5 2.9 –2.1 9.3 0.219

High Reference

Trust

Low –3.7 2.3 –8.3 0.9 0.118

High Reference

Justice and respect

Low 1.8 1.8 –1.7 5.4 0.307

High Reference

Variables	B	SE	95%CI	p value
Job tenure (years)
≤5	2.0	1.4	–0.7	4.9	0.154
6–9	1.1	1.3	–1.5	3.7	0.406
≥10	Reference
Influence at work
Low	1.7	1.3	–1.0	4.4	0.218
High	Reference
Meaning of work
Low	0.01	1.9	–3.7	3.7	0.997
High	Reference
Commitment to the workplace
Low	–3.4	1.8	–6.9	0.1	0.061
High	Reference
Predictability
Low	–18.5	1.8	–22.1	–15.9	< 0.001
High	Reference
Rewards
Low	–11.9	3.0	–18.0	–5.9	< 0.001
High	Reference
Quality of leadership
Low	–10.3	3.0	–16.3	–4.3	< 0.001
High	Reference
Social support from supervisors
Low	3.5	2.9	–2.1	9.3	0.219
High	Reference
Trust
Low	–3.7	2.3	–8.3	0.9	0.118
High	Reference
Justice and respect
Low	1.8	1.8	–1.7	5.4	0.307
High	Reference

4 Discussion

The results of the present study add to the understanding of organisational just culture and its relationship with the socio-demographic and work-related psychosocial factors in an industrial setting. The main findings of the study were that although employees generally had a positive attitude towards the just culture in their work environment, the psychosocial issues (particularly commitment to the workplace, meaning of work, social support from supervisors, and rewards) were not adequate from the employees’ perspective. The perception of just culture was related to job tenure and all aspects of psychosocial work conditions in univariate analyses, but predictability, rewards, and quality of leadership were the most important predictors of just culture in multivariate linear regression analysis. The findings highlight the areas that need to be considered to improve the experience of organisational just culture, which is important from the point of view of prevention of errors and incidents.

One of the main findings of the study was that the employees had a fairly positive view on their organisation’s just culture. In view of the fact that no other similar study has been carried out using the JCAT for evaluation of just culture among industrial workers, it is difficult to compare the results directly. However, according to our results, it seems that the JCAT is a reliable tool which can evaluate various aspects of just culture in industrial settings and consequently provides a detailed understanding in this regard. The application of the JCAT in this present study identified some areas that clearly needed further attention. For example, trust (e.g., the extent to which employees trust the organisation, their supervisors and their co-workers react to adverse safety events) and balance (e.g., the employees’ perceptions of fair treatment within the organisation regarding errors, error reporting, and systems approach to errors) issues were found to be more problematic than other aspects of just culture in the studied work setting, and therefore deserve further attention in this organisational setting. This is of particular interest since the functional structure of safety necessitates a climate of trust to function efficiently [20]. This requires a climate that fosters trust, in which employees are encouraged and willing to report not only their own errors and incidents but also those of others. In addition, in response to the negative consequences of adopting a strictly punitive or non-punitive approach to safety, there is an increasing support for embracing a just culture that establishes a balance between the two [3, 17]. In this regard, just culture attempts to establish a balance between the punitive and non-punitive approach to safety by differentiating errors as system-level or individual issues [17].

The results of the present study revealed a significant relationship of just culture with work-related and psychosocial factors in an industrial workplace. This finding is also of particular interest since it highlights areas where improvements to the psychosocial work environment can lead to an improved just culture within an organisation. According to our findings, there was a significant relationship between just culture and job tenure and all aspects of psychosocial work conditions in univariate analyses. The predictability, rewards, and quality of leadership were independent psychosocial factors predicting just culture in the studied population. This finding is of particular interest, since it highlights the importance of interpersonal relations and leadership (e.g., predictability and quality of leadership) in relation to safety practices. Considering the fact that there is little proof regarding the relationships between management quality and safety [21] as well as between predictability and safety, these findings provide additional evidence that interpersonal relations and leadership should be given more attention to improve employees’ safety awareness and behaviour. In addition, the reward system indicates the manner in which top management strengthens employees’ safe behaviour, and thereby shapes employees’ safety performance [22]. The low ratings on the reward system in this study might suggest that the plant had a blame culture, which can negatively impact employees’ willingness to report workplace safety problems [3, 22]. These findings highlight the need for workplace interventions to improve the above-mentioned variables, and consequently the employees’ perception of just culture in their organisation. Greater attention to, and improvement of, psychosocial factors in the workplace is likely to have a significant impact on both employees’ health and performance and workplace safety.

Although this research makes a number of important contributions, there are several limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the results. First, the data were collected at a single time point, and therefore causality cannot be established. Thus, prospective longitudinal studies may be required to replicate these findings. There may be limitations with regard to the generalisability of the findings simply because the JCAT has not been used before in industrial settings. Further research (such as confirmatory factor analysis) might be required to establish the factor structure of the JCAT in industrial settings. Nevertheless, our findings confirm that the JCAT is an instrument on which the researchers can rely on, to evaluate just culture in industrial settings. Further studies using this tool in other industrial and occupational groups would strengthen the generalisation of the findings and also support its reliability and validity in this regard.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the findings of this study help to better understand the perception of organisational just culture in an industrial setting and its relationship with personal and psychosocial factors in the work environment. Though the studied employees had a fairly positive view on just culture in their organisation, there were some areas (such as trust and balance issues) that needed further attention. Psychosocial factors including predictability, rewards, and quality of leadership were the predictors of just culture in the studied population. These findings highlight the areas that need to be considered to improve the experience of organisational just culture and have implications for prevention of errors and incidents.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

GAIN Working Group. A roadmap to a just culture–Enhancing the Safety Environment. Flight Safety, 2004.

Wiegmann

, Zhang

, von Thaden

, Sharma

, Mitchell

. A synthesis of safety culture and safety climate research. Aviation Research Lab, University of Illinois, Illinois, United States, 2002.

Reason

. Managing the Risks of Organisational Accidents. Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, 1997.

von Thaden

, Hoppes

, Li

, Johnson

, Schriver

. The perception of just culture across disciplines in healthcare. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, October 16–20 2006, San Francisco, pp. 964-8.

Dekker

, Breakey

. Just culture: improving safety by achieving substantive, procedural, and restorative justice. Safety Science. 2016;85:187–93.

Pikhart

, Bobak

, Pajak

, Malyutina

, Kubinova

, Topor

, Sebakova

, Nikitin

, Marmot

. Psychosocial factors at work and depression in three countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Social Science and Medicine. 2004;58:1475–82.

Kristensen

, Hannerz

, Høgh

, Borg

. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire –a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. 2005;31:438–49.

van den Berg

, Alavinia

, Bredt

, Lindeboom

, Elders

, Burdorf

. The influence of psychosocial factors at work and life style on health and work ability among professional workers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2008;81:1029–36.

Dianat

, Bazazan

, Azad

MAS

, Salimi

. Work-related physical, psychosocial and individual factors associated with musculoskeletal symptoms among surgeons: Implications for ergonomic interventions. Applied Ergonomics. 2018;67:115–24.

10.

Sharan

. Assessment of psychosocial risk factors. Work. 2012;41(Supplement 1):5361–2.

11.

Leka

, Griffiths

, Cox

. Work Organisation and Stress. Geneva: WHO, 2003.

12.

Aminian

, Dianat

, Miri

, Asghari-Jafarabadi

. The Iranian version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) for assessment of psychological risk factors at work. Health Promotion Perspectives. 2017;7:7–13.

13.

Shoaf

, Genaidy

, Shell

. A perspective on work system analysis: classification and evaluation of methods. Ergonomics. 1998;41:881–98.

14.

Biddison

ELD

, Paine

, Murakami

, Herzke

, Weaver

. Associations between safety culture and employee engagement over time: a retrospective analysis. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2016;25:31–7.

15.

Sexton

, Adair

, Leonard

, Frankel

, Proulx

, Watson

, Magnus

, Bogan

, Jamal

, Schwendimann

, Frankel

. Providing feedback following Leadership WalkRounds is associated with better patient safety culture, higher employee engagement and lower burnout. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2018;27:261–70.

16.

Wagner

, Hammer

, Manser

, Martus

, Sturm

, Rieger

. Do Occupational and patient safety culture in hospitals share predictors in the field of psychosocial working conditions? Findings from a cross-sectional study in German university hospitals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018;15:2131.

17.

Petschonek

, Burlison

, Cross

, Martin

, Laver

, Landis

, Hoffman

. Development of the Just Culture Assessment Tool (JCAT): Measuring the perceptions of healthcare professionals in hospitals. Journal of Patient Safety. 2013;9:190–7.

18.

Rasoulzadeh

, Shirinzadeh

. Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the just culture questionnaire (JCQ). Iran Occupational Health. 2017;14:114–22.

19.

Rasmussen

CDN

, Andersen

, Clausen

, Strøyer

, Jørgensen

, Holtermann

. Physical capacity and risk for long-term sickness absence: a prospective cohort study among 8664 female health care workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2015;57(5):526–30.

20.

Pettersen

, Bjørnskau

. Organizational contradictions between safety and security–Perceived challenges and ways of integrating critical infrastructure protection in civil aviation. Safety Science. 2015;71:167–77.

21.

Ale

BJM

, Bellamy

, Cooke

, Goossens

LHJ

, Hale

, Roelen

ALC

, Smith

. Towards a causal model for air transport safety—an ongoing research project. Safety Science. 2006;44:657–73.

22.

Geller

. Working Safe: How to People Actively Care for Health and Safety. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2001.