'Power base' tactics for workplace change - an interview study with industrial engineers and ergonomists

Ergonomics indicators: A proposal for sustainable process performance measurement in ergonomics

Process performance measurement (PPM) has become a challenging task for organisations, which have many various processes, in today's globalised world. This challenging task is also remarkable in ergonomics, and combining sustainability with ergonomics can provide beneficial solutions for assessing risks and providing ergonomically favourable conditions for human well-being. In this paper, new ergonomics indicators (EIs) are proposed, classified, and described in detail to overcome this challenge through a systematic literature review that integrates ergonomics and sustainability. By considering sustainability indicators (SIs) selected from the review, the proposed EIs are presented within a three-dimensional structure. This structure enables measuring the performance on various issues in an organisation such as occupational health and safety, decent work, technology, working conditions, employee empowerment and development, charities, innovations, and recycling. Through systematic measurements using these indicators, more traceable and manageable processes can be achieved. Hence, ergonomists or managers can identify and prevent risky conditions practically. Practitioner Summary: This paper proposes ergonomics indicators and detailed descriptions for ensuring sustainable process performance measurement in ergonomics. The sustainability indicators presented as references for these proposals are utilised through selection and consolidation from literature. The ergonomics indicators are structured within a sustainability framework that considers six sustainability sub-dimensions proposed for ergonomics.

Exploring ergonomists' experiences after participation in a theoretical and practical research project on observational risk assessment tools

Objective. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how ergonomists experienced an e-learning concept as a tool for knowledge translation; furthermore, to explore what, if any, impact the knowledge translation had regarding the ergonomists' work with risk assessments. Methods. Twelve Swedish ergonomists employed in the occupational health service (OHS) participated in a research project, which included an e-learning program in risk assessment training. Focus group interviews and individual interviews were used for data collection. Results. The ergonomists appreciated the e-learning concept, e.g., its flexibility enabled them to decide when and where to practice. The concept was considered feasible within the context of the OHS. The ergonomists experienced an increased knowledge of different observation-based risk assessment tools, which expanded their professional toolboxes. Additionally, they began to reflect more regarding the reliability of risk assessment tools and how to enhance quality in risk assessment assignments. Conclusion. This study showed that e-learning may comprise an efficient knowledge translation for improved risk assessments in the OHS. The program contributed to changes in ergonomists' risk assessment procedures, e.g., in the selection of tools, increasing the number of observers, employing a participatory approach and more often actively involving stakeholders during the risk assessment process.

Factors influencing ergonomists' use of observation-based risk-assessment tools

BACKGROUND:

Several observation-based risk-assessment tools have been developed in recent decades. Studies reporting their use often focus only on the user, the ergonomist. The influence of context and the attributes of the tools may also affect the use but are factors that are seldom considered.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of the present study was to explore the process of risk-assessment assignments and to identify factors influencing the use of research-based observation-based risk-assessment tools among Swedish ergonomists, with a background as reg. physiotherapists, employed in Occupational Health Services (OHS).

METHODS:

A web-based questionnaire (n = 70) was combined with semi-structured interviews (n = 12).

RESULTS:

There was limited use of several observation-based risk-assessment tools. Furthermore, the results showed that ergonomics risk-assessment assignments are most commonly initiated reactively and that interventions were seldom evaluated. Factors that influence use are related both to the ergonomist and to the attributes of the tools as well as to contextual factors assigned to authorities, and internal organisations both within occupational health service companies and client companies.

CONCLUSION:

There was a lack of systematic approaches in ergonomics risks assessment and low use and knowledge of risk-assessment tools. This indicates that there is a need to support OHS companies in implementing systematic tools in their practice.

Implementation strategies, and barriers and facilitators for implementation of physical activity at work: a scoping review

Background

Inactivity and sedentary lifestyle have led experts to recommend an increase in structured, workplace-based physical activity (PA) initiatives. Previous studies on workplace-based PA have only shown moderate and short-term effects. This has been attributed to the lack of clear implementation strategies and understanding of factors that may hinder or enable uptake of PA. To ensure long-term, sustainable outcomes, there is a need for a better understanding of implementation strategies, and barriers and facilitators to workplace-based PA.

Method

A scoping review of studies investigating implementation approaches and factors affecting uptake of workplace-based PA was conducted. Qualitative and quantitative articles published in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, or PsycINFO between 2008 and 2018 evaluating the implementation of PA were included. Data on study characteristics, evaluation, and implementation methods applied were systematically extracted. Two reviewers extracted, coded, and organised factors affecting uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Results

After dual, blinded screening of titles and abstracts, 16 articles reporting on eight studies were included in the review. Several different methods of implementation were applied, including information meeting, kick-off events, and "change agents" as the most common. A total of 109 factors influencing implementation were identified, consisting of 57 barriers and 52 facilitators. Barriers most often related to the TDF domains Environmental Context and Resources (n = 34, 36.2%), Social influences (n = 13, 13.8%), and Social/Professional Role and Identity (n = 8, 8.5%). Likewise, facilitators most often related to the TDF domains Social influences (n = 17, 19.5%), Environmental Context and Resources (n = 16, 18.4%), and Social/Professional Role and Identity (n = 9, 10.3%).

Conclusion

Our review has highlighted the multilevel factors affecting the uptake of workplace-based PA and underpins the complexities in implementation of such initiatives. The published literature predominantly provides details from the employees' perspectives on factors that need to be addressed and a lack of attention to these factors will cause them to hamper uptake of PA. The analysis of barriers and facilitators provides a theoretical foundation to guide future intervention design. However, further research is needed to fully understand the success or failure of implementation processes.