Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Introduction This systematic review aims to highlight the methodological inconsistencies in studying psychosocial safety climate (PSC). Highlighting the diverse dimensions and implications of PSC, this review seeks to enhance the replicability and comparability of studies, contributing to the development of standardised measurement techniques for the construct.
Methods and analysis The methodology encompasses a comprehensive search strategy in PubMed Central, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, Embase, Science Direct, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar from 28 January 2024 to 30 September 2024. A team of trained reviewers, under the guidance of the authors, will scrutinise eligible studies for inclusion based on predefined criteria. This will ensure a diverse yet focused selection of articles aligned with the research objectives. Robust data extraction and appraisal processes will be followed. Adopting a qualitative synthesis approach, the review aims to generate descriptive and analytical themes, uncovering nuanced dimensions of PSC beyond individual study findings. The protocol emphasises consultation with domain experts and a chartered librarian to refine research questions and optimise search strategies for selecting very relevant articles for the review. We will adopt qualitative data synthesis in summarising and presenting the results and findings for our review of PSC methodological issues.
Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not needed for this systematic review because the data for this review will be extracted from already published journal articles. The protocol for this review has been registered in the Open Science Framework. This review and its findings will be published in an academic journal and or presented at scientific conferences.
Trial registration number OSF registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3UZC2.
- systematic review
- safety
- psychological stress
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
The comprehensive search strategy in multiple databases with no restrictions on dates will ensure a wide range of included studies.
The inclusion of all appraised studies regardless of their appraisal outcomes is to ensure inclusive, unbiased, accurate and complete synthesis of available evidence.
The robust screening, appraisal, data extraction and synthesis processes will ensure rigour and reliable findings from the review.
The exclusion of studies published in languages other than English, grey literature, conference abstracts, editorials, commentaries and dissertations may limit the scope of available data.
The inclusion of low-appraised or high-risk studies may weaken the overall reliability and validity of the conclusion from this review.
Introduction
Psychosocial safety climate (PSC) is a crucial cornerstone in the field of organisational psychology and safety science, and for that matter workplace health and safety.1 2 It transcends mere perceptions of employees, representing a foundational element that significantly moulds worker experiences and overall psychological well-being and safety at work.3 At its core, PSC embodies the collective perceptions within a workplace concerning management’s commitment to prioritising the psychological well-being and safety of its employees.4 5 This encompasses the prevailing norms, policies and practices that directly or indirectly influence the psychological well-being of employees within the organisation.4 PSC serves as a mirror reflecting an organisation’s valuation and prioritisation of crucial factors like psychological well-being, safety and the proactive mitigation of psychosocial hazards in the work environment.5 Ultimately, it acts as a gauge of an organisation’s ethos and promotes commitment to fostering a psychologically safe and healthy workplace environment, a significant factor in Sustainable Development Goal 8.8 which aims at creating a decent, healthy and safe workplace for all.1
Transitioning into a deeper exploration, PSC encapsulates intricate facets of organisational dynamics, intertwining leadership effectiveness, communication authenticity, workload distribution and the prevailing safety culture ethos.5 6 This multifaceted construct significantly influences the psychological health and safety of employees, thereby directly impacting their engagement, productivity and long-term commitment to the organisation.1 5 However, reviews have highlighted inconsistencies and varied methodologies in PSC measurement.1 7 8 While these reviews comprehensively addressed the impact of PSC on enhancing workers’ well-being and safety, fostering a safe and healthy workplace, they did not sufficiently address the methodological issues inherent in PSC research. As PSC research expands rapidly and gains global prominence, continuous validation across diverse geographical and occupational contexts necessitates robust and standardised methods. Such methodologies would enhance the replicability of studies and ensure that findings are reliable, ultimately. Besides, such literature can effectively inform effective interventions aimed at improving workers’ well-being, safety, and organisational outcomes, including sustainability.
Methodological inconsistencies significantly hinder study replication and comparison, particularly in fields like organisational health, safety and psychology.9 Varying measurement methods for constructs such as PSC may yield divergent results, undermining result reliability and validity.7 For example, the use of PSC-8, which is yet to be validated, may yield divergent results from studies that have used more mature validated measures of PSC (PSC-12 and PSC-4).1 These discrepancies may impede direct study comparisons and limit findings’ generalisability to the broader context of worker health and safety.10 11 This challenges the act of synthesising studies for meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, hindering knowledge advancement in the field. The lack of standardised measurement methodologies hampers an organisation’s ability to accurately diagnose and target areas requiring improvement in their PSC. Consequently, this impedes the effectiveness of interventions aimed at fostering a supportive work environment and improving workers’ psychological well-being. Furthermore, the absence of standardised methodologies obstructs establishing best practices, curbing practical applications of PSC in organisational settings, which turn to waste research resources.7 8 Hence, standardising measurement approaches becomes imperative to redirect PSC research for improvement in both organisational outcomes and workers’ psychological well-being.1 7 8
Previous reviews1 7 8 of PSC studies have highlighted the use of diverse study designs across different occupational contexts. While it is valuable to explore PSC through various study designs to capture a wide range of occupational scenarios, it is crucial to assess the robustness and quality of these designs and methods. Thus, ensuring high-quality and robust methodologies is essential for yielding reliable findings. By critically evaluating the study designs and methods used in PSC research, we can improve the reliability of the results and enhance the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving workers’ well-being, safety and organisational outcomes.
Since its initial exploration in 2007,5 the examination of PSC has experienced significant growth globally.1 There has been a continuous validation of PSC subconstructs across various geographical settings and among occupational groups.5 Consequently, there is a pressing need to review methodologies used in measuring and studying PSC to identify and address the inconsistencies. Thus, this systematic review is essential to enhance the replicability and comparability of studies focusing on organisational PSC. This review aims not just to highlight the disparities in measuring PSC, but also to underscore the practical implications arising from these inconsistencies. By illuminating these broader implications, the review endeavours to contribute to the development of more nuanced and holistic measurement techniques. Ultimately, the review seeks to facilitate organisational interventions including programmes and policies that holistically address psychosocial health and safety, fostering healthier, more engaged workforce to enhance overall organisational growth and sustainability.
Materials and methods
The guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA),12 13 will be followed for this review.
Research questions
This systematic review will be guided by three research questions:
What are the prevailing theories, designs, occupational groups, sample size, sampling procedures and instruments used in measuring PSC among various published studies?
What are the reported reliability and validity indices of published studies that have measured PSC?
What is the methodological quality of published studies that have explored PSC?
Identifying relevant studies
Search for relevant studies will be done in five main databases (PubMed Central, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR and Embase). Additional databases (Science Direct, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar) will be searched for additional relevant papers. The search will span from 28 January 2024 to 30 September 2024. The search will initially be done in PubMed using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords with the search strategy presented in table 1. This search strategy will be modified for the search in other databases (refer to online supplemental file for details). Modifying the search strategy from PubMed for use in other databases allows for tailoring the search that fit the unique indexing systems and search functionalities of each of the other databases. This modification ensures maximum coverage and access to a broader spectrum of literature beyond what is available solely in PubMed Central, thereby enhancing the comprehensiveness of the systematic review. Adjusting the strategy for other databases also optimises the search to capture a diverse range of relevant studies, thereby strengthening the depth and breadth of the review’s findings.
Supplemental material
Search strategy for search in PubMed
Screening for relevant papers for inclusion
Prior to commencing the screening process, eligibility criteria will be established. This step is crucial because it helps to delineate clear guidelines that would govern the selection of relevant studies into the review. Also, it ensures that the selected studies are aligned with the focus of the review. The eligibility criteria presented in box 1 will serve as a foundational framework for the subsequent screening phases.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria
Peer-reviewed journal articles.
A study that measured psychosocial safety climate (PSC) using PSC-12, PSC-8, PSC-4 and adapted PSC-12 for a quantitative or qualitative study.
Studies on the development, validation or application of measurement instruments related to PSC-12, PSC-8 and PSC-4.
English language publications.
No restrictions on dates papers were published online and countries studies were conducted.
Exclusion criteria
Reviews.
Non-peer-reviewed sources (grey literature, conference abstracts, editorials, commentaries, dissertations).
Studies that explored PSC but did not use PSC-12, PSC-8 and PSC-4.
The screening process will be folded into three phases to assess and filter the identified literature. Initially, the utilisation of Mendeley, a referencing software, will help to delete duplicate entries, thereby streamlining the subsequent screening steps. Following this, 20 trained graduate students will screen titles and abstracts for full-text eligible records. Supervised by the researchers MA and EWA, this methodological approach will facilitate collaborative and diverse screening process. This approach will not only expedite the assessment of volumes of identified literature, it is also aimed at identifying eligible studies that potentially meet the predetermined eligibility criteria. This approach is designed to curtail biases, enhance efficiency and ensure the selection of studies that are most closely aligned with the inclusion criteria based on the research questions.
Furthermore, the final phase of the screening process will be done by two groups of authors (PO and GC) and (PKS and GOO). These authors will independently scrutinise the eligible full-text records to ascertain their inclusion. This stage will also be supervised by MA and EWA, the aim is to improve the quality assurance for robustness of the review. Any disparities or inconsistencies identified will be addressed and resolved through regular meetings among the authors, to ensure unanimity and consistency in the study selection process. This comprehensive methodology is structured to foster a robust and rigorous screening approach, thus, to enhance reliability and credibility of the review outcomes. The search results and the screening process will be summarised using the PRISMA flow chart (see figure 1, a model PRISMA flow diagram).
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram for search results and screening process.
Data extraction
A refresher training will be conducted for the data extractors, persons who are familiar with data extraction for reviews. A data extraction form will be designed and validated using about four studies. This crucial step is aimed to test the effectiveness of the form to capture essential information while allowing for refinements based on real-world application. We will extract data that include authors, publication years, study locations, objectives/research questions/hypotheses, population, sample size, sampling methods, theoretical underpinnings, measurement tools, reliability and validity measures, and outcomes. The extraction process will be carried out independently by two author groups ((PO and GC) and (PKS and GOO)), and reviewed by MA and EWA. This intentional duplication of effort serves to heighten the reliability and consistency of the extracted data. Cross-validation and the resolution of disparities will be resolved during regular meetings of the authors. This dual-author approach aims to ensure accuracy and completeness of the extracted information.
Appraisal of studies
The evaluation of data will involve the use of two essential tools: JBI critical appraisal tools and the Mixed-Method Appraisal Tool.14 Employing these tools is integral to ensuring the quality, reliability and credibility of the selected studies that will inform our systematic review. By employing established appraisal methodologies, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the gathered evidence. It is important to note that the purpose of this appraisal is not necessarily to dismiss or exclude studies, but rather to offer readers a clear insight into the quality of the papers included in the review. Through this process, we seek to transparently communicate the robustness of the existing literature, enabling readers to gauge the reliability and trustworthiness of the evidence synthesised for this review. Through this process, we seek to present a clear and unbiased assessment of the existing literature, to aid readers in making informed judgement of the reliability and trustworthiness of the evidence synthesised in this systematic review. Ultimately, the use of these appraisal tools will ensure that the review process is methodologically sound, enhancing the credibility and validity of the findings presented.
Synthesis
We will adopt qualitative data synthesis in summarising and presenting the results and findings for our review of PSC methodological issues. This approach involves systematic process where the data will be coded and organised into descriptive themes.15 16 These initial descriptive themes will serve as the foundation for constructing new, and more comprehensive themes directed toward answering the research questions.15 These higher-order themes will provide novel interpretations that go beyond the findings of individual primary studies. This method aims to offer deeper insights into the nuanced dimensions of methodologies used in studying PSC by amalgamating and interpreting findings from various sources.
In the initial stage, codes would be generated from the descriptions or definitions of key dimensions related to PSC extracted from existing frameworks or studies. This process would involve identifying unique concepts or elements within each dimension’s definition.
Following this, codes would be grouped into categories based on observed similarities and differences which will form descriptive themes that encapsulate the meaning of each category. These descriptive themes would represent crucial dimensions or aspects of PSC within the proposed framework.
Next, we will generate analytical themes derived from the descriptive themes. These analytical themes represent interpretations or overarching insights that go beyond individual study findings. They would be inferred from the interrelationships observed among the dimensions or categories, creating a conceptual structure for understanding PSC.
Finally, the reviewers will organise these PSC dimensions (descriptive themes) into different conceptual categories, drawing from their collective understanding and interpretation. This collaborative effort helps minimise bias and ensures a comprehensive delineation of the PSC framework.
This qualitative synthesis approach offers systematic and comprehensive methodology that ensures a thorough exploration of the concept. By extracting verbatim descriptions from diverse studies, this process aims to provide a holistic understanding of the measurement dynamics of PSC. Organising data into descriptive and analytical themes structure the synthesis, enabling the identification of key dimensions and unveiling the overarching insights in the reviewed studies. Importantly, this method minimises bias through collaborative efforts among reviewers, ensuring objectivity, ultimately consolidating information, generating new interpretations that potentially guide future research and practical applications within the realm of organisational PSC.
Consultation
A chartered librarian at the Sam Jonah Library is providing support in designing the search terms in PubMed, modifying search terms to suit other databases and the removal of duplicates. The librarian will heavily assist in the search for relevant articles for the review. Managers, industrial and organisational psychologists, industrial hygienists and occupational health and safety professionals are not involved directly in the design and conduct of the review, but were consulted during the development of the review questions.
Patient and public involvement
No patient was or will be involved in the design and conduct of this research.
Ethics and dissemination
Ethical approval is not needed for this systematic review because the data for this review will be extracted from published journal articles. This review and its findings will be published in an academic journal and or scientific conferences.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Contributors MA, EWA, PO, GC, PKS and GOO conceptualised this protocol and PO, GC, PKS and GOO wrote the first draft. EWA and MA reviewed the protocol draft. EWA is a senior researcher who edited and reviewed the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. EWA is the guarantor. EWA accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study, has access to the data and controlled the decision to publish.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.