Guidance strategies for a participatory ergonomic intervention to increase the use of ergonomic measures of workers in construction companies: a study design of a randomised trial

Evaluation of the effects of two alternative participatory ergonomics intervention strategies for construction companies

To improve the use of ergonomics tools by construction workers, the effect of two guidance strategies - a face-to-face strategy (F2F) and an e-guidance strategy (EG) - of a participatory ergonomics intervention was studied. Twelve construction companies were randomly assigned to the F2F group or the EG group. The primary outcome measure, the percentage of workers using ergonomics tools, and secondary outcome measures - work ability, physical functioning and limitations due to physical problems - were assessed using surveys at baseline and after 6 months. Additionally, a cost-benefit analysis was performed on company level. No differences in primary and secondary outcomes were found with the exception of the use of ergonomics tools to adjust working height (F2F +1%; EG +10%; p = .001). Newly-implemented tools were used by 23% (F2F) and 42% (EG) of the workers (p = .271). Costs were mainly determined by guidance costs (F2F group) or purchase costs (EG group). Practitioner Summary: Participatory strategies aim to stimulate behavioural change of stakeholders to increase the use of ergonomics tools. Two guidance strategies - face-to-face or e-mail interventions - among construction companies were studied. Both guidance strategies led to an increase in the use of new ergonomics tools.

The process evaluation of two alternative participatory ergonomics intervention strategies for construction companies

To gain insight into the process of applying two guidance strategies - face-to-face (F2F) or e-guidance strategy (EC) - of a Participatory Ergonomics (PE) intervention and whether differences between these guidance strategies occur, 12 construction companies were randomly assigned to a strategy. The process evaluation contained reach, dose delivered, dose received, precision, competence, satisfaction and behavioural change of individual workers. Data were assessed by logbooks, and questionnaires and interviews at baseline and/or after six months. Reach was low (1%). Dose delivered (F2F: 63%; EC: 44%), received (F2F: 42%; EC: 16%) were not sufficient. The precision and competence were sufficient for both strategies and satisfaction was strongly affected by dose received. For behavioural change, knowledge (F2F) and culture (EC) changed positively within companies. Neither strategy was delivered as intended. Compliance to the intervention was low, especially for EC. Starting with a face-to-face meeting might lead to higher compliance, especially in the EC group. Practitioner Summary: This study showed that compliance to a face-to-face and an e-guidance strategy is low. To improve the compliance, it is advised to start with a face-to-face meeting to see which parts of the intervention are needed and which guidance strategy can be used for these parts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN73075751.

Use of Ergonomic Measures Related to Musculoskeletal Complaints among Construction Workers: A 2-year Follow-up Study

Background

The physical work demands of construction work can be reduced using ergonomic measures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of ergonomic measures related to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among construction workers.

Methods

A questionnaire was sent at baseline and 2 years later to 1,130 construction workers. We established (1) the proportion of workers reporting an increase in their use of ergonomic measures, (2) the proportion of workers reporting a decrease in MSDs, (3) the relative risk for an increase in the use of ergonomic measures and a decrease in MSDs, and (4) workers' knowledge and opinions about the use of ergonomic measures.

Results

At follow-up, response rate was 63% (713/1,130). The proportion of workers using ergonomic measures for vertical transport increased (34%, 144/419, p < 0.01); for measures regarding horizontal transport and the positioning of materials, no change was reported. The proportion of workers reporting shoulder complaints decreased (28%, 176/638, p = 0.02). A relationship between the use of ergonomic measures and MSDs was not found; 83% (581/704) of the workers indicated having sufficient knowledge about ergonomic measures. Lightening the physical load was reported to be the main reason for using them.

Conclusion

Only the use of ergonomic measures for vertical transport increased over a 2-year period. No relationship between the use of ergonomic measures and MSDs was found. Strategies aimed at improving the availability of ergonomic equipment complemented with individualized advice and training in using them might be the required next steps to increase the use of ergonomic measures.