IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0292940.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Best practices for implementing biosafety inspections in a clinical laboratory: Evidence from a multi-site experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • Qiaoling Qin
  • Cynthia Tseng
  • Wenlin Chen
  • Chung-Li Tseng

Abstract

Objectives: To explore the key components when designing best practice inspection interventions, so as to induce high compliance with safety guidelines for laboratory workers. Methods: Five key components of an inspection intervention, identified from a focus group discussion, were used as the attributes of a discrete choice experiment (DCE). In the DCE, participants were presented with two hypothetical scenarios and asked to choose the scenario in which they were more willing to comply with the laboratory safety guidelines. Data were collected from 35 clinical laboratories in seven healthcare institutes located in Chengdu, China. In total, 188 laboratory workers completed the DCE. The collected data were analyzed using conditional logit regression and latent class analysis. Results: Five key attributes were identified as the most important ones to best ensure laboratory safety: the inspector, the inspection frequency, the inspection timing, the communication of the inspection outcome, and a follow-up with either a reward or a punishment. By investigating the laboratory workers’ responses to the attributes, properly implementing the five attributes could improve the workers’ compliance from 25.86% (at the baseline case) to 74.54%. Compliance could be further improved with the consideration of the laboratory workers’ heterogeneous reactions. In this study, two classes of workers, A and B, were identified. Compliance percentages for Classes A and B would be improved to 85.48% and 81.84%, respectively, when the key attributes were properly implemented for each class. The employment type and the size of the laboratory could be used to predict class membership. Conclusion: The findings indicate the importance of an employee-centered approach in encouraging a worker’s compliance. This approach also supports the design of tailored interventions by considering the laboratory workers’ heterogeneous responses to the interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiaoling Qin & Cynthia Tseng & Wenlin Chen & Chung-Li Tseng, 2023. "Best practices for implementing biosafety inspections in a clinical laboratory: Evidence from a multi-site experimental study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-16, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0292940
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0292940
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0292940&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0292940?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Qun & Abiiro, Gilbert Abotisem & Yang, Jin & Li, Peng & De Allegri, Manuela, 2021. "Preferences for long-term care insurance in China: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miao Guo & Yang Li & Minghao Wu & Terence C. Cheng, 2024. "Services and Cash: How Long-term Care Insurance Benefit Design Affects Household Behavior in China," Papers 2024-13, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
    2. Zhang, Jinsui & Hu, Min & Jia, Yusheng & Gu, Yuanyuan & Chen, Wen, 2024. "How should regulatory schemes be optimized to enhance deterrence against medical insurance fraud by enrollees? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 354(C).
    3. Tarifa Almulhim & Mohammed Al-Mahish & Mohammed Alabdulqader, 2024. "Eliciting Customers’ Preferences in the Cooperative Insurance Industry: Evidence from the Saudi Motor Insurance Market," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, July.
    4. Hess, Stephane & Lancsar, Emily & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Song, Fangqing & van den Broek-Altenburg, Eline & Alaba, Olufunke A. & Amaris, Gloria & Arellana, Julián & Basso, Leonardo J. & Ben, 2022. "The path towards herd immunity: Predicting COVID-19 vaccination uptake through results from a stated choice study across six continents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    5. Eneja Drobež & David Bogataj, 2022. "Legal Aspects of Social Infrastructure for Housing and Care for the Elderly—The Case of Slovenia," Laws, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    6. Shang Wu & Hazel Bateman & Ralph Stevens & Susan Thorp, 2022. "Flexible insurance for long‐term care: A study of stated preferences," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(3), pages 823-858, September.
    7. Yang, Tianli & Zhao, Zhong, 2025. "Public Long-Term Care Insurance and Retirement Intentions of Urban Workers: Evidence from China," IZA Discussion Papers 17642, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Amilon, Anna & Kjær, Agnete Aslaug & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu, 2022. "Trust in the publicly financed care system and willingness to pay for long-term care: A discrete choice experiment in Denmark," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0292940. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.