Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Under-reporting of work-related disorders in the workplace: a case study and review of the literature

PRANSKY, GLENN, SNYDER, TERRY, DEMBE, ALLARD, HIMMELSTEIN, JAY·1999·Ergonomics

Abstract

Accurate reporting of work-related conditions is necessary to monitor workplace health and safety, and to identify the interventions that are most needed. Reporting systems may be designed primarily for external agencies (OSHA or workers' compensation) or for the employer's own use. Under-reporting of workplace injuries and illnesses is common due to a variety of causes and influences. Based on previous reports, the authors were especially interested in the role of safety incentive programmes on under-reporting. Safety incentive programmes typically reward supervisors and employees for reducing workplace injury rates, and thus may unintentionally inhibit proper reporting. The authors describe a case study of several industrial facilities in order to illustrate the extent of under-reporting and the reasons for its occurrence. A questionnaire and interview survey was administered to 110 workers performing similar tasks and several managers, health, and safety personnel at each of three industrial facilities. Although less than 5% of workers had officially reported a work-related injury or illness during the past year, over 85% experienced work-related symptoms, 50% had persistent work-related problems, and 30% reported either lost time from work or work restrictions because of their ailment. Workers described several reasons for not reporting their injuries, including fear of reprisal, a belief that pain was an ordinary consequence of work activity or ageing, lack of management responsiveness after prior reports, and a desire not to lose their usual job. Interviews with management representatives revealed administrative and other barriers to reporting, stemming from their desire to attain a goal of no reported injuries, and misconceptions about requirements for recordability. The corporate and facility safety incentives appeared to have an indirect, but significant negative influence on the proper reporting of workplace injuries by workers. A variety of influences may contribute to under-reporting; because of under-reporting, worker surveys and symptom reports may provide more valuable and timely information on risks than recordable injury logs. Safety incentive programmes should be carefully designed to ensure that they provide a stimulus for safety-related changes, and to discourage under-reporting. A case-control study of similar establishments, or data before and after instituting safety incentives, would be required to more clearly establish the role of these programmes in under-reporting.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/001401399185874

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
PRANSKY, G., SNYDER, T., DEMBE, A., & HIMMELSTEIN, J.
Venue
Ergonomics
Published
1999-01
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
171-182
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
OpenAlex
W2139016686
Cited by
324
References
0
FWCI
30.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Under-reporting of work-related disorders in the workplace: a case study and review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/001401399185874
The paper
PRANSKY, G., SNYDER, T., DEMBE, A., & HIMMELSTEIN, J. (1999). Under-reporting of work-related disorders in the workplace: a case study and review of the literature. Ergonomics. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401399185874

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.