Economic analysis of new workplace technology including productivity and injury: The case of needle-less injection in swine
Increasing intensification in swine production has led to new and specialized technologies, but the occupational health and safety impacts are rarely quantified in the business plans for adoption. Needle-less injection has potential to increase productivity and eliminate needle stick injury in worke...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2020-06, Vol.15 (6), p.e0233599-e0233599 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0233599 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | e0233599 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Imeah, Biaka Penz, Erika Rana, Masud Trask, Catherine |
description | Increasing intensification in swine production has led to new and specialized technologies, but the occupational health and safety impacts are rarely quantified in the business plans for adoption. Needle-less injection has potential to increase productivity and eliminate needle stick injury in workers, but it is not clear whether these benefits offset high capital investment and potential increases in musculoskeletal loads. This economic evaluation employed probabilistic scenario analysis using injury, cost, and production data gathered from interviews with swine producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. After adoption of needle-less injection, rates of needle-stick injury went down with no measureable effect on upper limb musculoskeletal disorders, resulting in lower health and safety costs for needle-less injectors. Needle-less injection duration was 40% faster once workers acclimatized, but large start-up costs mean economic benefits are realized only after the first year. The incremental benefit cost ratio promoted adoption of needle-less injectors over conventional needles for the base case of a 1200 sow barn; the conventional method is beneficial for barns with 600 sows or less. Findings indicate that well-designed technologies have the potential to achieve the dual ergonomics goals of enhancing human wellbeing and system performance. We anticipate that the economic and decision models developed in this study can be applied to other new technologies in agriculture and animal production. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0233599 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2414405354</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A626896703</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_42d3c55eff764e0fa557df0b69045c87</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A626896703</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-620d03a280f9eec4b6d3567ffc6f7558bb4cbe6af856db6d0a217d9461d793f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1FrFDEQxxdRbK1-A8EFQfThzuxmk934IJRS9aBQ0OpryCaTvZy55Ex2Ww-_vNneKl3pg-QhYeY3_8kMM1n2vEDLAtfF240fghN2ufMOlqjEmDD2IDsuGC4XtET44Z33UfYkxg1CBDeUPs6OcEkIoZgeZ7_OpXd-a2Quktg-mph7nTu4yW98-L6zQkLeg1w7b323z42TdlDGdfkueDXI3lybfp9iVXJthrB_l1-tIZciwkEHlIWFhRhHPyTeu_TK441x8DR7pIWN8Gy6T7KvH86vzj4tLi4_rs5OLxaSUtaPBSiERdkgzQBk1VKFCa21llTXhDRtW8kWqNANoSo5kSiLWrGKFqpmWBf4JHtx0N1ZH_nUt8jLqqiq1BJSJWJ1IJQXG74LZivCnnth-K3Bh46L0BtpgVelwpIQ0LqmFSAtCKmVRi1lqCKyqZPW-ynb0G5BSXB9EHYmOvc4s-adv-Z1yRhmKAm8ngSC_zFA7PnWRAnWCgd-uP03KRmhBUnoy3_Q-6ubqE6kAozTPuWVoyg_pSVtGK0RTtTyHiodBWk80pBpk-yzgDezgMT08LPvxBAjX335_P_s5bc5--oOuwZh-3X0dhhnJ87B6gDK4GMMoP82uUB83JE_3eDjjvBpR_Bvv-4EVA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2414405354</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Economic analysis of new workplace technology including productivity and injury: The case of needle-less injection in swine</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Imeah, Biaka ; Penz, Erika ; Rana, Masud ; Trask, Catherine</creator><contributor>Fu, Shihe</contributor><creatorcontrib>Imeah, Biaka ; Penz, Erika ; Rana, Masud ; Trask, Catherine ; For the Needle-less Injector Study Team ; Fu, Shihe</creatorcontrib><description>Increasing intensification in swine production has led to new and specialized technologies, but the occupational health and safety impacts are rarely quantified in the business plans for adoption. Needle-less injection has potential to increase productivity and eliminate needle stick injury in workers, but it is not clear whether these benefits offset high capital investment and potential increases in musculoskeletal loads. This economic evaluation employed probabilistic scenario analysis using injury, cost, and production data gathered from interviews with swine producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. After adoption of needle-less injection, rates of needle-stick injury went down with no measureable effect on upper limb musculoskeletal disorders, resulting in lower health and safety costs for needle-less injectors. Needle-less injection duration was 40% faster once workers acclimatized, but large start-up costs mean economic benefits are realized only after the first year. The incremental benefit cost ratio promoted adoption of needle-less injectors over conventional needles for the base case of a 1200 sow barn; the conventional method is beneficial for barns with 600 sows or less. Findings indicate that well-designed technologies have the potential to achieve the dual ergonomics goals of enhancing human wellbeing and system performance. We anticipate that the economic and decision models developed in this study can be applied to other new technologies in agriculture and animal production.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233599</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32555636</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Acclimatization ; Agricultural economics ; Agricultural technology ; Agriculture ; Animal production ; Animals ; Barns ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cost benefit analysis ; Decision making ; Defects ; Dietary supplements ; Economic analysis ; Economic aspects ; Economic models ; Ergonomics ; Hogs ; Human performance ; Hypodermic needles ; Injection ; Injections ; Injectors ; Injuries ; Injury analysis ; Innovations ; Livestock ; Livestock industry ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Musculoskeletal diseases ; Musculoskeletal load ; Needles ; New technology ; Occupational health ; Occupational safety ; Occupational safety and health ; Officials and employees ; Pork ; Productivity ; Social Sciences ; Swine ; Swine production ; Technology adoption ; Vaccines</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-06, Vol.15 (6), p.e0233599-e0233599</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Imeah et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Imeah et al 2020 Imeah et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-620d03a280f9eec4b6d3567ffc6f7558bb4cbe6af856db6d0a217d9461d793f13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-620d03a280f9eec4b6d3567ffc6f7558bb4cbe6af856db6d0a217d9461d793f13</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0799-1735 ; 0000-0003-2610-8450</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7299390/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7299390/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Fu, Shihe</contributor><creatorcontrib>Imeah, Biaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Penz, Erika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rana, Masud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trask, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>For the Needle-less Injector Study Team</creatorcontrib><title>Economic analysis of new workplace technology including productivity and injury: The case of needle-less injection in swine</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Increasing intensification in swine production has led to new and specialized technologies, but the occupational health and safety impacts are rarely quantified in the business plans for adoption. Needle-less injection has potential to increase productivity and eliminate needle stick injury in workers, but it is not clear whether these benefits offset high capital investment and potential increases in musculoskeletal loads. This economic evaluation employed probabilistic scenario analysis using injury, cost, and production data gathered from interviews with swine producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. After adoption of needle-less injection, rates of needle-stick injury went down with no measureable effect on upper limb musculoskeletal disorders, resulting in lower health and safety costs for needle-less injectors. Needle-less injection duration was 40% faster once workers acclimatized, but large start-up costs mean economic benefits are realized only after the first year. The incremental benefit cost ratio promoted adoption of needle-less injectors over conventional needles for the base case of a 1200 sow barn; the conventional method is beneficial for barns with 600 sows or less. Findings indicate that well-designed technologies have the potential to achieve the dual ergonomics goals of enhancing human wellbeing and system performance. We anticipate that the economic and decision models developed in this study can be applied to other new technologies in agriculture and animal production.</description><subject>Acclimatization</subject><subject>Agricultural economics</subject><subject>Agricultural technology</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Animal production</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Barns</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Defects</subject><subject>Dietary supplements</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Ergonomics</subject><subject>Hogs</subject><subject>Human performance</subject><subject>Hypodermic needles</subject><subject>Injection</subject><subject>Injections</subject><subject>Injectors</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Injury analysis</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Livestock</subject><subject>Livestock industry</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Musculoskeletal diseases</subject><subject>Musculoskeletal load</subject><subject>Needles</subject><subject>New technology</subject><subject>Occupational health</subject><subject>Occupational safety</subject><subject>Occupational safety and health</subject><subject>Officials and employees</subject><subject>Pork</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Swine production</subject><subject>Technology adoption</subject><subject>Vaccines</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1FrFDEQxxdRbK1-A8EFQfThzuxmk934IJRS9aBQ0OpryCaTvZy55Ex2Ww-_vNneKl3pg-QhYeY3_8kMM1n2vEDLAtfF240fghN2ufMOlqjEmDD2IDsuGC4XtET44Z33UfYkxg1CBDeUPs6OcEkIoZgeZ7_OpXd-a2Quktg-mph7nTu4yW98-L6zQkLeg1w7b323z42TdlDGdfkueDXI3lybfp9iVXJthrB_l1-tIZciwkEHlIWFhRhHPyTeu_TK441x8DR7pIWN8Gy6T7KvH86vzj4tLi4_rs5OLxaSUtaPBSiERdkgzQBk1VKFCa21llTXhDRtW8kWqNANoSo5kSiLWrGKFqpmWBf4JHtx0N1ZH_nUt8jLqqiq1BJSJWJ1IJQXG74LZivCnnth-K3Bh46L0BtpgVelwpIQ0LqmFSAtCKmVRi1lqCKyqZPW-ynb0G5BSXB9EHYmOvc4s-adv-Z1yRhmKAm8ngSC_zFA7PnWRAnWCgd-uP03KRmhBUnoy3_Q-6ubqE6kAozTPuWVoyg_pSVtGK0RTtTyHiodBWk80pBpk-yzgDezgMT08LPvxBAjX335_P_s5bc5--oOuwZh-3X0dhhnJ87B6gDK4GMMoP82uUB83JE_3eDjjvBpR_Bvv-4EVA</recordid><startdate>20200617</startdate><enddate>20200617</enddate><creator>Imeah, Biaka</creator><creator>Penz, Erika</creator><creator>Rana, Masud</creator><creator>Trask, Catherine</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0799-1735</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2610-8450</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200617</creationdate><title>Economic analysis of new workplace technology including productivity and injury: The case of needle-less injection in swine</title><author>Imeah, Biaka ; Penz, Erika ; Rana, Masud ; Trask, Catherine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-620d03a280f9eec4b6d3567ffc6f7558bb4cbe6af856db6d0a217d9461d793f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Acclimatization</topic><topic>Agricultural economics</topic><topic>Agricultural technology</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Animal production</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Barns</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Defects</topic><topic>Dietary supplements</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Ergonomics</topic><topic>Hogs</topic><topic>Human performance</topic><topic>Hypodermic needles</topic><topic>Injection</topic><topic>Injections</topic><topic>Injectors</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Injury analysis</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Livestock</topic><topic>Livestock industry</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Musculoskeletal diseases</topic><topic>Musculoskeletal load</topic><topic>Needles</topic><topic>New technology</topic><topic>Occupational health</topic><topic>Occupational safety</topic><topic>Occupational safety and health</topic><topic>Officials and employees</topic><topic>Pork</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Swine production</topic><topic>Technology adoption</topic><topic>Vaccines</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Imeah, Biaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Penz, Erika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rana, Masud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trask, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>For the Needle-less Injector Study Team</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Imeah, Biaka</au><au>Penz, Erika</au><au>Rana, Masud</au><au>Trask, Catherine</au><au>Fu, Shihe</au><aucorp>For the Needle-less Injector Study Team</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Economic analysis of new workplace technology including productivity and injury: The case of needle-less injection in swine</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2020-06-17</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e0233599</spage><epage>e0233599</epage><pages>e0233599-e0233599</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Increasing intensification in swine production has led to new and specialized technologies, but the occupational health and safety impacts are rarely quantified in the business plans for adoption. Needle-less injection has potential to increase productivity and eliminate needle stick injury in workers, but it is not clear whether these benefits offset high capital investment and potential increases in musculoskeletal loads. This economic evaluation employed probabilistic scenario analysis using injury, cost, and production data gathered from interviews with swine producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. After adoption of needle-less injection, rates of needle-stick injury went down with no measureable effect on upper limb musculoskeletal disorders, resulting in lower health and safety costs for needle-less injectors. Needle-less injection duration was 40% faster once workers acclimatized, but large start-up costs mean economic benefits are realized only after the first year. The incremental benefit cost ratio promoted adoption of needle-less injectors over conventional needles for the base case of a 1200 sow barn; the conventional method is beneficial for barns with 600 sows or less. Findings indicate that well-designed technologies have the potential to achieve the dual ergonomics goals of enhancing human wellbeing and system performance. We anticipate that the economic and decision models developed in this study can be applied to other new technologies in agriculture and animal production.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>32555636</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0233599</doi><tpages>e0233599</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0799-1735</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2610-8450</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2020-06, Vol.15 (6), p.e0233599-e0233599 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2414405354 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Acclimatization Agricultural economics Agricultural technology Agriculture Animal production Animals Barns Biology and Life Sciences Cost benefit analysis Decision making Defects Dietary supplements Economic analysis Economic aspects Economic models Ergonomics Hogs Human performance Hypodermic needles Injection Injections Injectors Injuries Injury analysis Innovations Livestock Livestock industry Medicine and Health Sciences Musculoskeletal diseases Musculoskeletal load Needles New technology Occupational health Occupational safety Occupational safety and health Officials and employees Pork Productivity Social Sciences Swine Swine production Technology adoption Vaccines |
title | Economic analysis of new workplace technology including productivity and injury: The case of needle-less injection in swine |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T22%3A03%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Economic%20analysis%20of%20new%20workplace%20technology%20including%20productivity%20and%20injury:%20The%20case%20of%20needle-less%20injection%20in%20swine&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Imeah,%20Biaka&rft.aucorp=For%20the%20Needle-less%20Injector%20Study%20Team&rft.date=2020-06-17&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e0233599&rft.epage=e0233599&rft.pages=e0233599-e0233599&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0233599&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA626896703%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2414405354&rft_id=info:pmid/32555636&rft_galeid=A626896703&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_42d3c55eff764e0fa557df0b69045c87&rfr_iscdi=true |