Researchers, corporate decision-makers, government agencies, and international bodies want to know how to improve safety and limit the serious social and economic consequences of occupational injuries. Understanding how to deliver effective training is important to achieving this aim. Gamification is considered a new frontier in effective safety training. This study tested the use of gamification in safety training, considering two Italian companies that used a live-action role-play methodology called “PratiCARE la Sicurezza.” Workers who were required by Italian law to receive safety training or retraining participated in a pre–post study. Collection of measures relating to knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and perception of the health and safety climate took place at baseline and immediately after the intervention. Participants’ average safety knowledge at the end of the training was significantly better than the initial level, indicating that the training improved workers’ knowledge level.
BurkeMSarpySASmith-CroweK, et al. Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. Am J Public Health2006; 96: 315–324.
4.
RobsonLSStephensonCMSchultePA, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety training. Scand J Public Health2012; 28: 193–208.
5.
RicciFChiesiABisioC, et al. Effectiveness of occupational health and safety training: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Workplace Learn2016; 28: 355–377.
6.
KaoKYSpitzmuellerCCigularovK, et al. Linking safety knowledge to safety behaviours: a moderated mediation of supervisor and worker safety attitudes. Eur J Work Organ Psychol2019; 28: 206–220.
7.
MerrillMDTennysonRDPoseyLO. Teaching concepts: an instructional design guide. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1992.
8.
FoshayWR. Some principles underlying the cognitive approach to instructional design. In: SilberKHFoshayWRWatkinsR, et al. (eds) Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, vol. 1–3. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2009, pp. 3–22.
9.
TaylorMAWirthOOlvinaM, et al. Experimental analysis of using examples and non-examples in safety training. J Saf Res2016; 59: 97–104.
10.
FeinsteinAHMannSCorsunDL. Charting the experiential territory. J Manag Dev2002; 21: 732–744.
11.
KnowlesMS. Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1984.
12.
KolbD. Experiential learning: experience as a source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc, 1984.
13.
RicciFNucciM. Safety integrated model-training (SIM-t) and its evaluation: a safety training proposal for mechanical companies. Saf Sci2022; 146: 105538.
14.
GriffinMANealA. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J Occup Health Psychol2000; 5: 347–358.
15.
KappEA. The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate on employee safety performance. Saf Sci2012; 50: 1119–1124.
HollnagelEWearsRLBraithwaiteJ. From safety-I to safety-II: a white paper. The resilient health care net. University of Southern Denmark; University of Florida; USA; and Macquarie University, Australia, 2015.
18.
HollnagelE. Safer systems: people training or system tuning?EJIHPE2021;11: 990–998.
19.
KhaleelFLAshaariNSWookTSMT, et al. Gamification-based learning framework for a programming course. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI), Langkawi, Malaysia, 25–27 November 2017.
20.
CoonradtCA. The game of work. Salt Lake City, Utah: Shadow Mountain, 1984.
21.
MoraAPlanasEArnedo-MorenoJ. Designing game-like activities to engage adult learners in higher education. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, November 2016. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
22.
van RoyRDeterdingSZamanB. Uses and Gratifications of Initiating Use of Gamified Learning Platforms. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 21–26 April 2018. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
23.
DeterdingSDixonDKhaledR, et al. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. In: Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments, September 2011. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
24.
MaloneTW. Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cogn Sci1981; 5: 333–369.
25.
Martí-ParreñoJMéndez-IbáñezEAlonso-ArroyoA. The use of gamification in education: a bibliometric and text mining analysis. J Comput Assist Learn2016; 32: 663–676.
26.
DomínguezASaenz-de-NavarreteJde-MarcosL, et al. Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes. Comput Educ2013; 63: 380–392.
SlaterMDRounerD. Entertainment—education and elaboration likelihood: understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Commun Theory2002; 12: 173–191.
29.
KappK. The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, 2012.
30.
AbtCC. Serious games. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987.
SalenKTekinbaşKSZimmermanE. Rules of play: game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
33.
HuotariKHamariJA. Definition for gamification: anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electron Mark2017; 27: 21–31.
34.
PengW. Design and evaluation of a computer game to promote a healthy diet for young adults. Health Commun2009; 24: 115–127.
35.
ArmstrongMBLandersRN. Gamification of employee training and development. Int J Train Dev2018; 22: 162–169.
36.
NarvaezDvan den BroekPRuizAB. The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. J Educ Psychol1999; 91: 488–496.
37.
NahFF-HZengQTelaproluVR, et al. Gamification of Education: A Review of Literature. In: Proceedings of International Conference on HCI in Business, Government, and Organizations, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 22–27 June 2014.
38.
RicciKESalasECannon-BowersJA. Do computer-based games facilitate knowledge acquisition and retention?Mil Psychol1996; 8: 295–307.
39.
WainessROneilHBakerE. Classification of learning outcomes: evidence from the computer games literature. Curric J2005; 16: 455–474.
40.
SitzmannT. A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Pers Psychol2011; 64: 489–528.
41.
FeinsteinAHCannonHM. Constructs of simulation evaluation. Simul Gaming2002; 33: 425–440.
42.
HaysRTSingerMJ. Simulation fidelity in training system design: bridging the gap between reality and training. New York, NY, US: Springer-Verlag Publishing, 1989.
43.
PegdenCDSadowskiRPShannonRE. Introduction to simulation using SIMAN. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995.
44.
BedwellWLPavlasDHeyneK,et al.Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: an empirical study. Simul Gaming2012; 43:729–760.
45.
CampionNMartinsDWilhelmA. Contradictions and predictions: two sources of uncertainty that raise the cognitive interest of readers. Discourse Process2009; 46: 341–368.
46.
Howard-JonesPDemetriouS. Uncertainty and engagement with learning games. Instr Sci2008; 37: 519–536.
47.
WoutersPvan NimwegenCvan OostendorpH, et al. A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. J Educ Psychol2013; 105: 249–265.
WengerE. How we learn. Communities of practice. The social fabric of a learning organization. Health Forum1996; 39: 20–26.
50.
BoalA. Theater of the oppressed. London, UK: Pluto Press, 2000.
51.
FreireP. Pedagogy of the oppressed. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.
52.
VanekAPetersonA. Live action role-playing (LARP): insight into an underutilized educational tool. In: SchrierK (ed.) Learning, education and games, vol. 2. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press, 2016, pp. 219–240.
53.
HackerW. Activity: a fruitful concept in industrial psychology. In: FreseMSabiniJ (eds) Goal directed behavior: the concept of action in psychology. Mahwah, NJ, USA: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1985, pp. 262–284.
54.
FreseMZapfD. Action as the core of work psychology: a German approach. Handb Ind Organ1994; 4: 271–340.
55.
ReasonJ. Human error: models and management. Br Med J2000; 320: 768–770.
56.
BeusJMMcCordMAZoharD. Workplace safety: a review and research synthesis. Organ Psychol Rev2016; 6: 352–381.
57.
MorganDL. Focus groups. Ann Rev Sociol, 1996; 22:129–152.
RicciFPelosiAPanariC, et al. Safety Value in Practice for an Effective Occupational Health and Safety Training. In: Proceedings of Organization 4.1: The role of values in the organizations of the 21st century ISSWOV (International Society for the Study of Work and Organizational Values), Trieste, Italy, July 1–4 2018.
65.
RicciFPelosiAPanariC, et al. Safety Training 4.0: Active, Collaborative, Human-Focused Practices, to Improve Health at Work. In: Proceedings of Transdisciplinary Engineering Methods for Social Innovation of Industry 4.0: 25th ISPE Inc. International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering, Modena, Italy, July 3–6, 2018.
BalestroniGBertolottiG. EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D): an instrument for measuring quality of life. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis2012; 78: 155–159.
68.
NyumbaTOWilsonKDerrickCJ, et al.The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol2018; 9: 20–32.
69.
MorettiFVan VlietLBensingJ, et al. A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries. Patient Educ Couns2011; 82: 420–428.
70.
BedwellWLWildmanJLDiaz GranadosD, et al. Collaboration at work: an integrative multilevel conceptualization. Hum Resour Manag Rev2012; 22: 128–145. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.007
71.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. Hillsdale, NJ: L.E.A, 1988.
