Table 3.
Sensitivity analysis based on mutual information and predicitive resoning
| Variables | The posterior probability of “NSIs = no” |
Sensitivity | Mutual information (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Worst state | Best state | |||
| Preconditions for unsafe acts | ||||
| Safety motivation | 62.8 | 79.5 | 26.6 | 0.019 (2.3) |
| Fatigue | 65.3 | 78.6 | 20.4 | 0.016 (1.8) |
| Teamwork | 67.2 | 75.3 | 12.1 | 0.005 (0.6) |
| Physical environment | 66.7 | 79.4 | 19.0 | 0.017 (2.0) |
| Unsafe supervision | ||||
| Supervisors’ attitude to safety | 59.6 | 77.7 | 30.4 | 0.019 (2.3) |
| Safety training | 66.5 | 74.8 | 12.5 | 0.004 (0.5) |
| Working hours per week | 63.8 | 78.8 | 23.5 | 0.013 (1.5) |
| Night shifts per week | 64.9 | 75.7 | 16.6 | 0.007 (0.9) |
| Organizational influences | ||||
| Staffing | 65.2 | 76.0 | 16.6 | 0.008 (1.0) |
| Management commitment | 66.0 | 75.8 | 14.8 | 0.007 (0.8) |
| Availability of safety procedures | 71.9 | 72.2 | 0.4 | 0.000 (0.0) |
NSIs, needlestick and sharps injuries.