Search

The prevalent disparity and divergence in the identification of safety-climate dimensions in the academia cause general confusion and inconvenience to both construction researchers and practitioners in terms of safety-climate measurement. Existing review studies identified several key dimensions or common features of safety climate, but only in a qualitative way. Whether these common features fit the reality and reflect the essence of construction safety climate is still to be verified by empirical studies. This research defined the core dimension and specific dimension of safety climate, identified the four most commonly used dimensions, and built a core dimension structure of safety climate accordingly. Empirical data collected from 21 Chinese construction enterprises were analyzed by means of structural equation modeling. The proposed core dimension structure and the corresponding measurement scale were validated rigorously by structural equation modeling approaches. Furthermore, two specific subgroups of the enterprises were analyzed to prove that the core dimension structure also applies to specific construction enterprise types, such as building contractors and specialty trade contractors. It is concluded that the proposed core dimension structure of safety climate is applicable in construction practices, especially to building enterprises. Practical implications of the safety-climate core dimension research are discussed in detail. This study contributes to the construction safety-climate study primarily by depicting relationships among the common dimensions as well as relationships between common dimensions and specific dimensions, which have rarely been involved or interpreted deeply in the past research. This can in turn facilitate the standardization of construction safety-climate measurement by providing a unified criterion (core dimension structure of safety climate) for both researchers and practitioners. It is a valid starting point to design specific measurement scales in different settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Core recovery dimensions lie between the large general factor of recovery and its underlying components. Identifying these could enhance recovery frameworks, practice and research. In contrast to existing conceptually based taxonomies, we sought to empirically identify the core dimensions of recovery through further psychometric analysis of a robust eleven factor (sub-scale) consumer recovery outcome measure, My Voice, My Life. We subjected the sub-scale scores of 504 consumers to further principal components analyses, beginning with a single unrotated factor and progressing through two to nine factors with varimax rotation. We found the five-factor solution to provide an orderly intermediate configuration with the eleven recovery factors having either aligned and/or disengaged through the process to result in the following core dimensions: (1) Belonging and relating (encompassing the individual factors of spirituality, culture, and relationships); (2) Being and doing (encompassing the individual factors of physical health, day-to-day life, and quality of life); (3) Thinking and feeling (encompassing the individual factors of recovery, mental health, and hope and empowerment); (4) Resources (which maintained its independence); and (5) Satisfaction with Services (which also maintained its independence). We compare this empirical configuration with conceptually based taxonomies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of the Institute of Science & Technology of Dumlupinar University / Dumlupinar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi is the property of Dumlupinar University, Institute of Science & Technology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Primary care reform has been on the political agenda in Canada and many industrialized countries for several decades; it is widely seen as the foundation for broader health system transformation. Federal investments in primary care, including major cash transfers to provinces and territories as part of a 10-year health care funding agreement in 2004, triggered waves of primary care reform across Canada. Nevertheless, Commonwealth Fund surveys show, Canada continues to lag behind other industrialized nations with respect to timely access to care, electronic medical record use and audit and feedback for quality improvement in primary care. This paper evaluates the pace and direction of primary care reform as well as the extent of resulting change in the organization and delivery of primary care in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative methods were used for this study. A literature review was conducted to analyze the core dimensions of primary care reform, the history of reform in Ontario, and the extent to which different dimensions are integrated into Ontario's models. Quantitative data on the number of family physicians/general practitioners and patients enrolled in these models was examined over a 10-year period to determine the degree of change that has taken place in the organization and delivery of primary care in Ontario. Results: There are 11 core reform dimensions that individually and collectively shift from conventional primary care toward the more expansive vision of primary health care. Assessment of Ontario's models against these core dimensions demonstrate that there has been little substantive change in the organization and delivery of primary care over 10 years in Ontario. Conclusions: Primary care reform is a multi-dimensional construct with different reform models bundling core dimensions in different ways. This understanding is important to move beyond the rhetoric of "reform" and to critically assess the pace and direction of change in primary care in Ontario and in other jurisdictions. The conceptual framework developed in this paper can assist decision-makers, academics and health care providers in all jurisdictions in evaluating the pace of change in the primary care sector, as well as other sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]