Suppr超能文献

针对建筑公司的两种替代性参与式工效学干预策略的过程评估。

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

作者信息

Visser Steven, van der Molen Henk F, Sluiter Judith K, Frings-Dresen Monique H W

机构信息

a Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Academic Medical Center , University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam , The Netherlands.

出版信息

Ergonomics. 2018 Sep;61(9):1156-1172. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2018.1454514. Epub 2018 Mar 26.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

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.

摘要

未标注

为深入了解参与式工效学(PE)干预的两种指导策略——面对面(F2F)或电子指导策略(EC)——的应用过程以及这两种指导策略之间是否存在差异,12家建筑公司被随机分配到一种策略。过程评估包括覆盖范围、提供的剂量、接受的剂量、精准度、能力、满意度以及个体工人的行为变化。数据通过日志、基线时和/或六个月后的问卷调查及访谈进行评估。覆盖范围较低(1%)。提供的剂量(F2F:63%;EC:44%)和接受的剂量(F2F:42%;EC:16%)均不足。两种策略的精准度和能力均足够,满意度受接受剂量的影响很大。对于行为变化,公司内部知识(F2F)和文化(EC)呈正向变化。两种策略均未按预期实施。对干预的依从性较低,尤其是EC组。以面对面会议开始可能会导致更高的依从性,尤其是在EC组。从业者总结:本研究表明,对面对面和电子指导策略的依从性较低。为提高依从性,建议以面对面会议开始,以确定干预的哪些部分是必要的,以及哪些指导策略可用于这些部分。

试验注册

ISRCTN73075751。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验