METHOD: Literature searches were conducted using EBSCOhost and Web of Science databases in March 2021. We included English-language, peer-reviewed studies that reported the results of research done on safety climate and safety performance. We extracted data (contextual, theoretical, methodological and definition of safety performance) from these studies and were deductively analyzed and categorized into common themes.
RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-two safety climate studies were identified. We found that studies on safety climate-performance were conducted in 16 types of industries while 23 different theories explained the safety climate-performance relationship. The quantity and quality of variables and methods used varied considerably across the surveys. Safety climate is predominantly used as a predictor while safety-related behavior is the most common definition of safety performance among the articles we reviewed. Few papers from the current review were methodologically strong, suggesting that current evidence on the link between safety climate and safety performance still suffers from common method bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Although literature has provided evidence for the positive effect on safety performance via a strong safety climate, strong and convincing methods are still lacking and the causality of an improved safety climate still needs to be demonstrated.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: The findings of the current review offer a better understanding of how employers can improve safety climate in the workplace in various settings.
METHODOLOGY: Patients suitable for BCS who were treated with IORT between January 2016 and June 2019 from three centres were analysed. They were divided into low-risk and high-risk groups based on the risk of recurrence according to the TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) A and B study criteria. Outcomes of interest included local recurrence, wound complications, and radiation toxicity, with a subset analysed for cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes.
RESULTS: Within a median follow-up of 31 months, there were 104 and 211 patients in the low- and high-risk groups, respectively. No significant difference was observed in local recurrence rates (low-risk, 1.0% vs. high-risk, 1.4%; p = 1.000). Both cohorts exhibited low frequencies of severe wound complications ranging between 1.4 and 1.9%. No major radiation toxicities were reported in either group. In the subgroup analysis, low-risk patients had significantly better mean scores in the subscales of inframammary fold and scar. Based on the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcomes questionnaire, seven out of nine parameters were scored similarly between both groups with no significant difference.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that the use of IORT in both low- and high-risk early breast cancers is efficacious and safe with low recurrence rates and an acceptable toxicity profile.