Introduction

An occupational injury is any unintended physical harm or damage to body tissue brought on by exposure at work1,2. According to ILO estimates, there are 380,500 fatal occupational injuries and 374 million non-fatal ones worldwide each year3,4. Globally, across industries, and across workers, the burden of occupational injuries is not evenly distributed5,6. According to a recent estimate from the World Health Organization (WHO), between 20 and 50 percent of workers in developing and newly industrialized countries are exposed to numerous work-related non-fatal injuries7,8. According to recent reports, Asia has a greater rate of occupational injury than any other region on the globe7,9. In Iran, one of the biggest avoidable safety issues is occupational injury10. 9996 non-fatal occupational injuries at work with at least one missed workday were reported to Iran’s Social Security Organization (SSO) in 2018, with the exception of injuries sustained in commuting accidents. Of this survey, 96.7% were related to men, and only 3.3% were related to women11.

The most significant industrial sector in Iran is the ceramic industry12. Iran’s industry sector is now the main driver of the country’s economic expansion13. Similar to other high-risk industries, the ceramics sector exposes its workers to hazardous conditions that can seriously jeopardize their health and lives14. Even with the use of safety measures in the ceramic sector, there has been a rise in workplace injuries, with sometimes disagreeable results15. Thus, occupational injury analysis in the ceramic industry can assist management in selecting the best course of action for the pertinent organizational circumstances by offering the opportunity to identify the types and causes of occupational injuries as well as a platform for creating and carrying out corrective activities.

Planning and reducing occupational injuries in the Iranian ceramic sector essentially start with data collection and logical analysis16. Particularly when it comes to occupational injuries, the idea of safety climate is thought to be a good indicator of safety-related outcomes17,18,19. In the ceramics sector, the safety climate is a crucial metric for assessing safety performance and preventing workplace injuries. However, there is still a lack of clarity regarding the safety climate’s role in preventing occupational injuries in the ceramic industry. The impact of safety climate on occupational injuries was examined in a study by Mohammadfam et al. The study’s findings show that safety climate is unquestionably a significant component that influences several aspects of safety behaviors, either directly or indirectly. Injury is also caused by poor safety practices; however, a poor safety climate is not the direct cause of an injury20.

By assessing the safety climate in injured workers, it is possible to identify aspects of the safety climate that need improvement and, to some extent, reduce the prevalence of occupational injuries. The majority of research has focused on the prevalence rates of injury and their associated risk factors, and causes as well as outcomes18,21,22,23,24,25,26. One of the limitations of these studies is that they examined the occupational injuries at a specific time point and did not assess the trend of changes over a multi-year time period. Furthermore, an assessment of the safety climate to enhance working conditions and lower occupational injuries was not included in these researches.

Several studies have analyzed safety climates and their relationship with the work environment in Iran. Eight distinct industry sectors have been the subject of research on Iran’s safety climate: the construction sector has been the subject of three studies27,28,29, while the manufacturing, maintenance, and healthcare sectors have published five studies30,31,32,33,34. Comparative studies have revealed a notable variation in safety climates among industrials, which calls for more research on the subject35. One of the limitations of these studies is the lack of assessment of safety climate in injured occupational groups. Evaluation of the safety climate in injured workers can identify the aspects that need further improvement, allowing organizations to create safety initiatives that can greatly increase safety36. The safety climate for injured workers in the Iranian ceramics sector hasn’t been specifically studied, though. Furthermore, the reviewed literature sources clearly demonstrate that a thorough consideration of the socio-organizational causes of occupational injuries to workers in the Iranian ceramic industry is necessary to establish a favorable safety climate. Therefore, in order to close this gap, the current study will assess the safety climate in injured workers in the ceramic sector. Unlike other studies, this study will examine occupational injuries over a four-year period from 2020 and 2023 coinciding with one of the world’s historic events, the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, this study’s primary goals were to investigate the trends in the prevalence rate of occupational injuries, risk factors linked to them over a four-year period, and the level of safety climate among injured workers in the ceramics industry in Iran. The present study will address the following research questions:

How does the pattern of changes in the prevalence of occupational injuries and associated risk factors between 2020 and 2023 in the ceramic industry?

What is the level of safety climate in the ceramics industry?

Which dimensions of the safety climate for injured workers in the ceramic industry need improvement compared to non-injured workers?

Significance and implications

This study provides important information for the first time about the prevalence and trends of occupational injuries and related risk factors, and the safety climate (for both injured and non-injured groups) in the Iranian ceramic industry. This study can therefore help inform decisions about resource allocation, modify laws, and the execution of occupational injury management strategies. By assessing the safety climate, the ceramics sector can identify weaknesses in current protocols and develop targeted solutions to improve safety protocols and reduce the risk of worker injuries.

Methods

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethical Clearance Committee of Yazd University (Approval No. IR.YAZD.REC.1398.027). All procedures adhered to relevant guidelines and regulations. Occupational injury data were collected with written consent from the ceramic industry. Participants received full explanations about the safety climate assessment, questionnaire completion, research purpose, and confidentiality assurances. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants. Data were anonymized, securely stored, and used solely for research purposes.

Study design

A cross-sectional study design was employed to analyze the trend of changes in occupational injuries and related risk factors from 2020 to 2023 as well as assess the safety climate among injured workers in the ceramic industry in Yazd, a central province of Iran.

Characteristics of the studied industry

Yazd province, which has 42 ceramic industries with an annual production capacity of over 170 million square meters, is Iran’s first hub for this sector. This industry has employed a significant portion of the population in recent years. It has frequently employed a combination of skilled and unskilled workers, which may have an effect on training program efficacy and safety procedures. Designing specialized solutions might be aided by having a thorough understanding of the safety climate within such a diversified workforce. Safety planning and management are necessary for this ceramics sector, just like for any other sector. The working conditions for employees in all ceramic industries are nearly the same. Therefore, the present study selectively chose one of the ceramic industries to investigate occupational injuries and safety climate. The industry under investigation has 320 workers and 13 workplaces. Every workplace has a variety of occupational groupings for its workers. This industry’s occupational groupings include stone crushers, mechanics, welders, spray ball millers, repairers, press dryers, glazing, glazing lines, furnaces, cutting, packaging, and squaring. The work pattern consists of three 8-h rotating shifts. A worker’s morning shift runs from 6:00 to 14:00. After that, they take a 16-h break, which is equal to two shifts (14:00 to 22:00 for the evening shift and 22:00 to 06:00 for the night shift).

Definitions

For this study, any non-fatal bodily injury received while working was considered an occupational injury. The only incidence of the event for a given time was recorded as an injury. Prevalence of occupational injuries refers to the ratio of the number of injuries to the total number of workers in the last 12 months. Safety climate was the perceived value obtained on safety in the ceramic industry at a particular point in time.

Sample size and sampling method

The sample size for occupational injury assessment was obtained based on the data set obtained during the years 2020–2023. The study’s sample size to evaluate the safety climate was established using the Cochran formula for a finite statistical population (Eq. 1).

$${\text{n}} = \frac{{{\text{Nz}}^{2} {\text{pq}}}}{{{\text{Nd}}^{2} + {\text{z}}^{2} {\text{pq}}}}$$
(1)
$${\text{n}} = \frac{{320{ }\left( {1.96} \right)^{2} \left( {0.5} \right)\left( {0.5} \right)}}{{320{ }\left( {0.1} \right)^{2} + \left( {1.96} \right)^{2} \left( {0.5} \right)\left( {0.5} \right)}} = 73.84 \approx 74$$
(2)

where n is the sample size, N is all employees of the studied ceramic industry, z is the confidence level (1.96), p = q is the proportion of the anticipated population (0.5), and d is the margin of error, which was considered 10%37. After taking into consideration the 10% non-response rate, the final sample size was determined to be 81. Ultimately, 81 workers were chosen using the purposive sampling technique.

Occupational injury data was collected through injured workers’ referrals to the factory’s health and safety center. Safety climate data was collected through a purposive sampling technique. Purposive sampling is a technique used in qualitative research to select a specific group of individuals or units for analysis. Participants are chosen “on purpose” not randomly. More details on how to select participants are provided below.

Study participants

Occupational injury: It included every employee, both temporary and permanent.

Safety climate: Participants were only chosen for the study if they met the inclusion requirements, which included being between the ages of 20 and 60 and having worked in the ceramics industry for at least a year before the study began. All employees in administrative roles, including secretaries, accounting personnel, and receptionists, were not included in the study since they had no direct involvement in the ceramic production process. Thus, these circumstances were present in only 85 workers.

Study instruments and data collection

Occupational injury data: Data on reported occupational injuries was collected from the plant accident reporting systems from 2020 to 2023. It should be mentioned that the start of this study aligned with the height of COVID-19’s outbreak in Iran. The process of collecting information was as follows: Initial therapy after an occupational accident was handled by the company’s center for occupational health and safety, which also notifies the appropriate inspectorate and social security system of the injury’s details. The workplace health and safety center then keep track of all pertinent paperwork. After each incident, the information about the injured party was transferred to an Excel file. This information includes demographic variables (age, gender, work experience, and occupational title), injury characteristics (body part affected, the work shifts, injury severity, outcome of the injury, place of injury, and time of injury).

Safety climate data: NOSACQ-50 is one of the most accurate and representative measurement instruments for the safety climate. The NOSACQ-50 questionnaire was created by Kines et al. in 201135. The 50 statements that make up the questionnaire help to assess seven aspects of the safety climate. Seven dimensions of this questionnaire are mentioned in Table S1 (Supplementary Information file). Its efficacy as a diagnostic instrument to examine the safety climate within industries has been confirmed by numerous research studies testing the validity and reliability of NOSACQ-50 in diverse scenarios38. Nonetheless, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the questionnaire’s reliability in this study, and the result was 0.95. Employees with and without occupational injury histories were given the NOSACQ-50 questionnaire. The question used to separate the injured group from the non-injured group was, “In the past 12 months, have you experienced an accident or physical injury that resulted in a cut, amputation, burn, laceration, fracture, trauma, back pain, sprain, or contusion?” The response options provided were “yes” or “no”. To answer the questions of the NOSACQ-50 questionnaire, a four-step Likert scale was used to indicate the level of agreement, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, which was equivalent to a rating scale of 1–4 for favorably worded statements or 4–1 for the reversed assertions.

Data quality assurance

Occupational injury data: Training sessions were given to the individual in charge of data input to make sure they understood the significance of precise data collection. A biostatistician performed a data quality assurance assessment following data collection. The accuracy and consistency of the data were examined.

Safety climate data: To guarantee the quality of the data, the data collectors received training. Five percent of the entire sample size participated in a pretest of the questionnaire to ensure it was understandable. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to a total of 85 respondents, all of whom were workers on the production line and supervisors. The data were examined for mistakes and outliers following the allotted time for completing the questionnaire. Data entry errors, such as respondents giving their birth year rather than their age, were fixed appropriately. In the meantime, blank and insufficient data for general information were excluded from statistical computations. By figuring out each response’s standard deviation, outlier data was eliminated. The standard deviation of 13 responses was zero. This suggests that the same response was given to every question, which shows that respondents were not very engaged. Consequently, these answers were eliminated. Because standard deviation values below 0.25 indicated very little variation in the response, they were also eliminated. After another 22 responses were eliminated, 51 responses were deemed legitimate and kept for further analysis.

Study dependent variable

A set of dependent variables was determined for this study: occupational injury prevalence rate, and safety climate score.

Data analysis

Occupational injury data: The statistical calculations and analysis of occupational injury data were performed using IBM SPSS version 26 software. Minimum, maximum, mean, median, standard deviation, mode, skewness, and kurtosis were among the descriptive statistics that were used. The associations between independent variables were assessed using Spearman’s correlation analysis, and a plot was created to show any significant relationships between two variables. The following independent factors were chosen for correlation analysis: age, sex, job experience, shift, severity of injury, injured body part, and injury outcome. The level of significance was taken as p < 0.05.

Safety climate data: Analyzes related to safety climate were also performed in IBM SPSS version 26 software, which included the true mean, and Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension. The safety climate level of the ceramic industry was determined based on Table 1. Afterwards, the safety climate scores of injured and non-injured workers were compared using a Mann–Whitney U test. P-values less than 0.05 indicated a significant difference between the two groups.

Table 1 Classification of safety climate38.
Full size table

Results and discussion

Occupational injury prevalence rate in ceramic industry

Figure 1 illustrates an upward trend in occupational injury prevalence from 2020 to 2023, rising from 4.68% in 2020 to 19.06% in 2023. The low rate in 2020 may be attributed to reduced work activity during COVID-19 lockdowns. As restrictions eased, injury rates increased. While no prior studies focus specifically on the ceramic industry, results comparisons with other sectors show varied rates. For example, the prevalence rate of occupational injuries in the construction industry has been reported to be 32.6% in Ethiopian25, 56% in Gambia26, 31% in Iran24, and 56.04% in Ghana39. However, this study aligns more closely with findings from occupational injury prevalence rates among brick-making industry workers in India (17.55%)40 and the mining industry in Kenya (19.27%)39. Additional information about occupational injury rates in other studies is provided in Table S1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Occupational injury prevalence rate in the ceramic industry from 2020 to 2023.

Full size image

Frequency of occupational injuries based on workplaces

The frequency of injuries for each workplace between 2020 and 2023 is displayed in Figure S1. Overall, the statistics showed that the workers who dealt with cutting, squaring, and packaging experienced the highest frequency of occupational injuries between 2020 and 2023. In this workplace, cutting ceramics to exact measurements is frequently done with blades, grinders, and saws. Fast-moving, sharp parts of cutting and squaring devices can result in serious accidents like cuts or even amputations. Furthermore, employees commonly lift and move bulky ceramics or bundles at work, all of which can result in musculoskeletal injuries.

Outcomes of occupational injuries

Figure S2 shows that occupational injuries in the ceramic industry (2020–2023) led to various outcomes, including ligament strain, fractures, trauma, burns, and permanent disorders. Trauma was the most common injury type, with fingers being the most frequently affected due to their constant use and exposure to machinery. In contrast, foot sole injuries were least common. Similar findings were reported by Islam et al., who found finger injuries accounted for 18.83% of cases in stone-crushing workers41. Other studies by Abbas et al.19, Abidin et al.42, and Hussen et al.43 also confirmed the high frequency of finger injuries. However, some research, such as Das’s study on bricklayers, found more injuries in lower body parts like the back and toes40. Hunegnaw et al. likewise identified hands as the most commonly injured body part in their study in Ethiopia44.

Risk factors associated with injuries

Table 2 shows that from 2020 to 2023, 95.5% of occupational injuries involved male workers, with the highest rates in 2023. Female injury rates remained relatively stable. This disparity is likely due to men performing more physically demanding and hazardous tasks. Furthermore, there is a culture that emphasizes toughness or risk-taking among male workers in the ceramics industry, leading them to perform more dangerous tasks or ignore safety protocols. Similar findings were reported in studies by Win et al.45, Yosef et al., and Gebremeskel et al.18,25.

Table 2 Demographic characteristics of the injured from 2020 to 2023.
Full size table

Age appears to be a key individual factor influencing injury risk. With a mean age of 40, the highest injury rate (28.76%) occurred among workers aged 38–43, while the lowest was in the 50–55 age group. From 2020 to 2023, injuries among the 38–43 group increased, possibly due to COVID-19-related labor shortages forcing them into more physically demanding roles. These findings align with studies by Rahmani et al. and Salminen et al.10,46, though other research has reported peak injury rates among workers aged 30–3647 or over 6048,49.

The highest rate of occupational injuries (24.4%) occurred among workers with less than one year of experience. This aligns with findings by Haas et al.50, who showed an inverse relationship between job tenure and injury rates, as well as studies by Ayim Gyekye and Biabani et al.51,52. Other results showed that injury rates in this group of workers increased between 2020 and 2022, likely as a result of rehiring, layoffs, and interrupted training programs caused by COVID-19.

Table 3 shows that most work-related injuries from 2020 to 2023 occurred during the morning shift, with 2023 recording the highest number. Injuries peaked around 10 a.m., likely due to higher workforce density, increased machine use, and the presence of less experienced workers during this shift. Prior studies support these findings: Nag and Patel reported the highest injury rates during morning shifts in the textile industry53, and Wigglesworth found similar patterns in Australian occupational statistics54. However, some studies, including those by Nielsen, Laske, and Malik, found evening shifts had higher injury rates55,56,57.

Table 3 Injury occurrence time from 2020 to 2023.
Full size table

The injured parts of the workers’ bodies and their severity

Table 4 shows that from 2020 to 2023, finger injuries were the most common and severe, reflecting the manual and machinery-related risks in the ceramics industry. According to the findings, there was a notable change in the nature and severity of occupational injuries in the sector between 2020 and 2023. However, no fatalities were recorded, and most injuries were non-disabling. Of those who were injured, 49% had an injury severity score of 3.

Table 4 The injured body part and its severity from 2020 to 2023.
Full size table

Correlation between independent factors

Eight independent factors were examined for correlation analysis in this study: genus, injury time, shift, work experience, age, accident severity, injured member, and injury place. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient values for pairs of variables influencing occupational injuries are displayed in Fig. 2. According to the results of this study, age and injury severity had significantly correlated (p-value = 0.009). Injuries may be more severe for older workers because they may not be as physically resilient or able to recuperate as younger ones. Because of their seniority or position in the company, older workers may be exposed to more dangerous activities even though they can avoid some risks better and have greater expertise. As people age, their agility and reaction times may deteriorate, increasing the risk of suffering more serious injuries in an accident.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Spearman’s correlation coefficient between significant factors influencing the prevalence of work-related injuries in the ceramics sector.

Full size image

The second group of correlated variables was age and work experience (p-value = 0.005). The correlation between age and work experience in the context of occupational injuries can be complex and multifaceted. Generally, as workers age, they tend to accumulate more work experience. As workers age, they may experience physical changes that could impact their ability to perform certain tasks safely. According to the findings, workers with fewer than a year of experience had the greatest accident rate. Also, workers with 16–20 years of experience had the lowest injury rate.

The third group of correlated variables was the injured body part and the severity of the injury (p-value = 0.044). Given the correlation between the kind of injured body part and the degree of the injury, it is possible that some body part injury types are linked to more severe outcomes in the context of occupational injuries. Among them, the fingers were the most commonly injured body part. The severity of the injury was the highest for this body part. Because employees in the ceramics industry regularly handle heavy materials, tools, and machinery, there is a higher risk of crush injuries or lacerations to the fingers, all of which can have serious outcomes.

Safety climate in the ceramic industry

The NOSACQ-50 safety climate questionnaire was utilized in this study to determine which dimensions of the safety climate required improvement in order to lower occupational injuries and enhance workers’ working conditions. A summary of the safety climate research participants’ demographic information is given in Table S3.

Reliability of the NOSACQ-50 questionnaire

The reliability of the NOSACQ-50 questionnaire was determined using Cronbach’s alpha. For the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test to be considered reliable, the α value must be at least 0.6. Good dependability is indicated by an α value between 0.6 and 0.7, whereas exceptional reliability is indicated by values greater than 0.8. However, since there may be redundancy across variables—that is, when two or more variables have comparable responses—values higher than 0.95 might not be ideal. An α value larger than 0.7 was obtained for five out of the seven dimensions that were examined, suggesting the reliability of the indicators used to express them. The α value for Dim3 and Dim5, which had an invalid item, was 0.6, indicating acceptable dependability for these dimensions (Table 5).

Table 5 Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for safety climate dimensions.
Full size table

Safety climate in injured and non-injured workers

Table 6 shows the overall safety climate perception based on the NOSACQ-50 questionnaire, with an average score of 2.88, indicating a relatively poor safety climate in the ceramic industry. Comparative data in Table S4 show that this score is lower than those reported in various sectors, including Ethiopian professional logging industry38, the Saudi Arabian construction industry58, the Indonesian construction industry59, the Iranian poultry slaughterhouse industry60, the Turkish metal industry61, and the Chinese construction industry62. These differences may stem from variations in industry type and management safety practices.

Table 6 Comparison of mean scores of safety climate for each dimension between the injured and non-injured workers.
Full size table

Positive safety climates have been linked to lower accidents and self-reported injuries among employees, according to a prior study that used the Zohar safety climate instrument19. Thus, it has been proposed that a strong safety climate leads to fewer occupational injuries, more productivity, and lower costs over time. The study’s overall findings demonstrated that the injured groups’ safety climate score was lower than the non-injured group’s. Nonetheless, the results demonstrated that the safety climate score for dimensions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 did not significantly difficulties between the injured and non-injured groups (p-value > 0.05). Because the overall safety climate score for dimensions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 for both the injured and non-injured groups was less than three, the data obtained indicate that significant reforms and improvements for each of the five dimensions are needed in the ceramic industry. Dimension 1 Safety Climate refers to strengthen the perception that management prioritizes safety. For this dimension, a significant difference was observed between the injured and non-injured groups (p-value < 0.05). Therefore, improving dimension 1 of the safety climate is more important for the injured group. To improve this dimension, regular site visits should be conducted by senior management to inspect safety measures. It should be clearly stated that safety takes priority over production. Safety performance should be included in the management of the safety key performance indicators (KPIs).

The goal of Dimension 2 of the safety climate was to foster a sense of involvement and support for employees. For this dimension, there was a significant difference between the injured and non-injured groups (p-value < 0.05). The safety climate score for non-injured groups was relatively good. The safety climate score for this dimension in the injured group was relatively weak. Therefore, improvement of this dimension is needed in the injured group. To improve this dimension, supervisors need to be trained on how to coach and empower workers. Proactive safety behavior and workers’ suggestions should be rewarded. For dimensions 3, 4, 5, and 6, there were no significant differences between the injured and non-injured groups.

The 3rd dimension of safety climate is intended to measure employees’ feelings about how incidents are handled. The goal of Dimension 3 was to ensure fair and transparent handling of safety incidents. To improve this dimension, learning should be promoted rather than punishment in injured and non-injured groups, unless there is intentional negligence. Root cause analysis of the injury should be conducted with the participation of workers. Safety rules must be applied equally, regardless of rank. Providing counseling and support to affected employees after incidents is essential.

The perception of employees’ dedication to safety was the fourth dimension of the safety climate. To improve dimension 4, employees’ personal commitment to safety must be increased. This should allow workers to lead safety talks or toolbox meetings. It is important to encourage verbal or written pledges related to safety. Bonuses or awards should be offered for sustained safe behavior.

Dimension 5 received the lowest safety climate score. The goal of improving dimension 5 was to eliminate the acceptance of risky behaviors. Thus, zero tolerance must be applied to bypassing safety protocols. To emphasize the consequences of risk-taking, real-life examples of incidents should be used. Ensure realistic deadlines that do not pressure workers into unsafe shortcuts.

Dimension 6 refers to how employees view sharing safety knowledge and experiences among themselves. The goal of improving Dimension 6 of the safety climate was to encourage open communication and mutual learning. Thus, to improve this dimension, short meetings should be used to share learnings or updates. Forums should be created where workers can share their experiences of accidents.

Dimension 7 refers to examining how employees view the advantages of safety planning, training, supervision, etc. For this dimension, the safety climate score in the injured and non-injured groups was relatively good. In this dimension, no significant difference was observed between the injured and non-injured groups (p-value > 0.05).

This study adds to the body of knowledge on occupational health and safety, particularly within the ceramics industry. It can serve as a reference point for future research, encouraging further studies on related topics or in similar industries. The study’s focus on risk factors associated with injuries allows for a deeper understanding of the underlying causes of injuries in the ceramics industry. The insights gained from assessing safety climate can be used to develop more effective training and educational programs for injured workers. These programs can focus on hazard recognition and safe work practices and eliminate the acceptance of risky behaviors. By addressing occupational injuries and improving safety climate, the research has potential economic implications. Reducing injury rates can lead to lower healthcare costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased productivity within the ceramics industry.

Research limitations and future research directions

Although the results of the present study had limitations, recommendations for future research can be made. Data collection of occupational injuries was subject to specific limitations.

Since our study’s data came from records, it’s likely that some workplace injuries go unreported by employers, which could lead to an underestimation of the true statistics.

The collection of occupational injury data coincided with the outbreak of the COVID-19 disease in Iran. Therefore, the presence of fewer employees or the implementation of strict rules in this period can affect the results of this study.

Since the NOSACQ-50 questionnaire is a self-report tool, the low scores could have resulted from bias, as respondents may have provided answers that reflect their desired perception of themselves. Future studies should try to eliminate biases by combining the NOSACQ-50 questionnaire with observations and interviews.

Conclusion

The main strength of this study was its ability to comprehensively assess the pattern of changes in the occupational injuries over a four-year period and to identify dimensions of the safety climate of injured workers that needed strengthening. The results of this study showed that, between 2020 and 2023, the prevalence of occupational injuries among workers in the ceramic industry was on the rise. The findings also indicated that workers generally have a poor level of safety climate, which highlights their excessive risk-taking behavior and lack of safety prioritization. Compared to the non-injured groups, the injured groups’ safety climate score was deemed to be lower. The only aspect of the safety climate that was at a reasonably high level was workers’ trust in the efficiency of safety procedures. In conclusion, this study can serve as a starting point for further research aimed at lowering the incidence of occupational injuries among workers in the ceramic industry through targeted and customized interventions at the organizational (e.g., information and training activities) and normative (e.g., safety best practices) levels. The social and workplace aspects in the ceramic industry can therefore undoubtedly be improved by such an outcome.